DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the original application filed on 11/25/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which, claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
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 .
Priority
This application is a CON that claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/892,451 filed on 08/22/2022, which has since been issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,153,501.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 12/18/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on11/25/2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification submitted on 11/25/2024 is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 , the limitation "…indicating the of accessing…" should read as "…indicating the probability of accessing…".
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
While no prior art rejection is given by the examiner at this time (see rationale below), the claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are not allowable as the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
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 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) 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 § 2146 et seq. 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).
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping presented below.
Present Application 18/959,207
Patent No. 12,153,501
Analysis
1. A method comprising:
storing data within a first storage bucket in a first region of a multi-cloud environment,
wherein the data is made available to a first application hosted within the first region;
evaluating operation of a second application hosted within a second region of the multi-cloud environment to detect that the second application has a probability of accessing the data;
performing a cross-region replication operation to replicate the data from the first storage bucket to a second storage bucket in the second region of the multi-cloud environment based upon the second application having the probability of accessing the data; and
provisioning containers within the first region and the second region for hosting the first application and the second application with shared access to the data through the first storage bucket and the second storage bucket.
1. A method comprising:
2. storing the data within a first storage bucket in the first region of the multi-cloud environment;
1. wherein the first application and the third application are hosted at a first region of the multi-cloud environment
1. second application is hosted at a second region of the multi-cloud environment;
1. in response to determining that the second application has a threshold probability of accessing the data
2. performing a cross-region replication operation to replicate the data from the first storage bucket to a second storage bucket as the cached data in the second region of the multi-cloud environment
2. provisioning containers within the first region and the second region with shared access to the data through the first storage bucket and the second storage bucket.
Both methods.
Same limitation.
Both host a first application hosted within the first region.
Both determine that a second application hosted within a second region of the multi-cloud environment has a probability of accessing data
Both perform a cross-region replication operation to replicate the data from the first storage bucket to a second storage bucket in the second region of the multi-cloud environment
Essentially the same limitation.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are essentially just a different embodiment of the same claimed limitation.
2. The method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving predictions from a trained machine learning model indicating the of accessing the data by the second application.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving predictions from a trained machine learning model indicating a probability of accessing the data of the first application by a client device; and
determining that the second application has the threshold probability of accessing the data of the first application based upon the predictions.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claims 9 and 16 are essentially just a different embodiments of the same claimed limitation.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising:
in response to determining that the second application has the probability of accessing the data of the first application, asynchronously caching the data as cached data through the second storage bucket.
1. in response to determining that the second application has a threshold probability of accessing the data of the first application, asynchronously caching the data as cached data within a network edge of the second region for subsequent access by the second application to perform a restore operation using the data;
Essentially the same limitation.
Claims 10 and 17 are essentially just a different embodiments of the same claimed limitation.
4. The method of claim 1, comprising:
registering the first application with a lifecycle management application that instructs a third application to perform the cross-region replication operation of the data.
5. registering the first application with a lifecycle management application, wherein the lifecycle management application is configured to instruct the third application to perform the cloning operation of the data
Essentially the same limitation.
Claims 11 and 18 are essentially just a different embodiments of the same claimed limitation.
5. The method of claim 4, comprising:
instructing, by the lifecycle management application, the third application to perform the cross-region replication operation based upon the first application has registered with the lifecycle management application.
5. The method of claim 1, comprising:
registering the first application with a lifecycle management application, wherein the lifecycle management application is configured to instruct the third application to perform the cloning operation of the data; and
instructing, by the lifecycle management application and after registering the first application with the lifecycle management application, the third application to perform the cloning operation.
Essentially the same limitation.
Claims 12 and 19 are essentially just a different embodiments of the same claimed limitation.
6. The method of claim 1, comprising:
constructing a unified cloud user interface for accessing the data by client devices within multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment.
6. constructing a unified cloud user interface for accessing the data by client devices within multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment
The same limitation.
Claim 13 is essentially just a different embodiments of the same claimed limitation.
7. The method of claim 6, comprising:
populating the unified cloud user interface with information identifying content and cached content stored across the multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment.
6. populating the unified cloud user interface with information identifying content and cached content stored across the multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment
The same limitations.
Claim 14 is essentially just a different embodiments of the same claimed limitation.
20. The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
constructing a unified cloud user interface for accessing the data by client devices within multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment; and
populating the unified cloud user interface with information identifying content and cached content stored across the multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment.
6. constructing a unified cloud user interface for accessing the data by client devices within multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment; and
6. populating the unified cloud user interface with information identifying content and cached content stored across the multiple regions of the multi-cloud environment
The same limitation.
The same limitation.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suarez et al. (US Pat. No. 10,002,247, cited in IDS), hereinafter Suarez.
Regarding independent claim 1, Suarez teaches a method comprising: storing data within a first storage bucket in a first region of a multi-cloud environment, wherein the data is made available to a first application hosted within the first region; (Suarez, Fig. 10 and C23L40-60, discloses container registries located on servers in different regions of a content delivery network provide faster uploading, downloading, and otherwise access of container images. A first region may upload a container image to a first data server of the content delivery network.)
evaluating operation of a second application hosted within a second region of the multi-cloud environment to detect that the second application has a probability of accessing the data; (Suarez, C24L14-27, discloses intelligent caching of container images, if the customer has container instances running a first version of a container image on servers in a second region, the system may predict that if the software developer ever updates the container image, then it is likely that the customer will soon wish to update the container instances to the new version of the container image. In preparation for this event, the system may cache one or more layers, or as many as may be needed to update the container instances, in local memory or fast persistent storage of servers in the second region.)
performing a cross-region replication operation to replicate the data from the first storage bucket to a second storage bucket in the second region of the multi-cloud environment based upon the second application having the probability of accessing the data; (Suarez, C23L64-C24L8 and C24L14-27, discloses the content delivery network may host content on the servers throughout the various regions by copying the content from a server in one region to a server in another region. Intelligent caching of container images allows the system to predict and cache layers in local memory or fast persistent storage of servers in the second region.) and
provisioning containers within the first region and the second region for hosting the first application and the second application with shared access to the data through the first storage bucket and the second storage bucket. (Suarez, C24L8-13, discloses by being able to download a container image from a server in the same region allows the customer to receive the container image more quickly than downloading the container image from the first server located in the first region.)
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same limitations as independent claim 1 and therefore are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Independent claims 8 and 15 further recite a computing device, comprising: a memory comprising machine executable code; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the machine executable code and a non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions for performing a method, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations which are taught by Suarez, Fig. 13 and C27L58-C28L3, which discloses computer systems configured with executable instructions executed on one or more processors. The executable instructions may be stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 2, Suarez teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving predictions from a trained machine learning model indicating the of accessing the data by the second application. (Suarez, C24L14-27 and C24L41-59, discloses Intelligent caching of container images allows the system to predict and cache layers in local memory or fast persistent storage of servers in the second region based on historical deployments of container images from the same repository.)
Claims 9 and 16 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Suarez teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: in response to determining that the second application has the probability of accessing the data of the first application, asynchronously caching the data as cached data through the second storage bucket. (Suarez, C24L14-27 and C24L41-59, discloses Intelligent caching of container images allows the system to predict and cache layers in local memory or fast persistent storage of servers in the second region based on historical deployments of container images from the same repository.)
Claims 10 and 17 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-9785. The examiner can normally be reached MON-TH 8:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571)270-1760. 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.
/Eddy Cheung/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165