DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on 12/12/2024 in which claims 2 – 20 are presented for examination, after preliminary amendment of 2/12/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 2 – 20 are pending, of which claims 2, 10, and 18 are 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 .
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.
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, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofstee et al., U.S. Patent Application 2012/0005473 (hereinafter referred to as Hofstee) in view of Sinha et al., U.S. Patent Application 2015/0046994 (hereinafter referred to as Sinha), further in view of Krook et al., U.S. Patent Application 2016/0260157 (hereinafter referred to as Krook).
Referring to claim 2, Hofstee discloses “A method of configuring a configurable hardware platform” (Fig. 3A reconfigurable logic 304 and [0040] state machine 302 attempts to load the new configuration into reconfigurable logic 304), “the method comprising: a configuration” “phase comprising:” loading, “by a control plane” “configuration data corresponding to an application logic”; “and receiving, by the control plane, the configuration data” (Fig. 3A reconfigurable logic 304 and [0040] state machine 302 attempts to load the new configuration into reconfigurable logic 304. [0039] state machine 302 authenticates and optionally decrypts a new configuration from the requesting one of components 306); “a configuration phase comprising: verifying, by the control plane, whether the application logic is compatible with a host logic that is loaded on the configurable hardware platform” ([0039] state machine 302 authenticates and optionally decrypts a new configuration from the requesting one of components 306 and [0040] If state machine 302 determines that authentication and optional decryption of the new configuration has failed or that the loading of the authenticated and optionally decrypted new configuration fails to successfully load within reconfigurable logic 304, state machine 302 clears any state of reconfigurable logic 304); “and if the application logic is compatible with the host logic, copying the application logic from the control plane to the configurable hardware platform to load the application logic into the configurable hardware platform” ([0039] state machine 302 authenticates and optionally decrypts a new configuration from the requesting one of components 306 and [0040] state machine 302 attempts to load the new configuration into reconfigurable logic 304); “and an application phase comprising:” “executing the application logic on the configurable hardware platform” ([0041] If state machine 302 determines that the new configuration has been successfully loaded, state machine 302 then starts the operation of reconfigurable logic 304).
Hofstee does not appear to explicitly disclose “a configuration data fetching phase comprising: sending, by a control plane running on a server computer, a request to fetch configuration data corresponding to an application logic from a logic repository
service” and “executing application software on a customer instance running on the server computer.”
However, Sinha discloses another configuring method (Abstract) wherein “a configuration data fetching phase comprising: sending, by a control plane running on a server computer, a request to fetch configuration data corresponding to an application logic from a logic repository service” (Figs. 1 and 5 send an identifier to a configuration server for fetching a configuration set from the configuration server 520-530. Also Fig. 5 step 540 apply the fetched configuration set to the mobile application).
Hofstee and Sinha are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration methods.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hofstee and Sinha before him or her, to modify the teachings of Hofstee to include the teachings of Sinha so that configuration data is fetched from a repository service.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a remote location for storing configuration (saving local space) and to provide standardization of configurations across devices (since all configurations come from the server).
Neither Hofstee nor Sinha appears to explicitly disclose “executing application software on a customer instance running on the server computer.”
However, Krook discloses another system for providing an application to a user device (Fig. 4 and [0086] downloading program instructions) including “executing application software on a customer instance running on the server computer” ([0026-29] deployed apps, app hosting. Fig. 1 and [0037] server).
Hofstee, Sinha, and Krook are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is configuration methods.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hofstee, Sinha, and Krook before him or her, to modify the teachings of Hofstee and Sinha to include the teachings of Krook so that a customer instance of the application is run on the server computer.
The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of the larger capabilities of a server/cloud, such as computing power and storage space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Krook with Hofstee and Sinha to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 3, Krook discloses “the configuration data fetching phase further comprises: launching a machine instance using a marketplace service” ([0003] a cloud marketplace typically provides users with native cloud applications and approved apps created by third party developers).
As per claim 5, Hofstee discloses “the configuration phase further comprises: cleaning, by the control plane, the configurable hardware platform” ([0039] state machine 302 clears out the prior state of reconfigurable logic 304. That is, state machine 302 clears any prior configuration of reconfigurable logic 304 such that the new configuration may be loaded. Once state machine 302 clears out the prior configuration out of reconfigurable logic 304, state machine 302 authenticates and optionally decrypts a new configuration).
As per claim 8, Krook discloses “the application phase further comprises:
communicating between the application software on the customer instance and the application logic on the configurable hardware platform” ([0026-29] deployed apps, app hosting. Fig. 1 and [0037] server).
Referring to claim 10, claim 2 recites the corresponding limitations as that of claim 10. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 10.
Further, Hofstee discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for configuring a configurable hardware platform” ([0047]).
Note, claim 11 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 11.
Note, claim 13 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 applies to claim 13.
Note, claim 16 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 8. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 applies to claim 16.
Referring to claim 18, claim 2 recites the corresponding limitations as that of claim 18. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 applies to claim 18.
Further, Hofstee discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” ([0047] and [0053]).
Note, claim 19 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application 20050108518 discloses reconfigurable FPGAs and a control plane processor.
U.S. Patent Applications 20120331244 and 20200192860 and Patent 10089277 teach a configurable memory controller and reconfigurable logic circuit array with reconfiguration instructions and reconfiguration data.
U.S. Patent 8024548 teaches a re-configurable logic device fetching and decoding the configuration bit map.
U.S. Patent 9197501 is the granted patent to Sinha.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN G SNYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm (flexible).
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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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.
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184