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 Non-Final.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 04-22-2024.
Domestic Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) (International) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02-21-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication module” and “processing module” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As per dependent claims 13-20, these claims are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Action May Be Required By Applicants
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may do one of the following:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication No. 2022/0164186 (hereinafter, “Pamidala”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0413923 (hereinafter, “Mukkamala”).
As per claim(s) 1, 121, Pamidala discloses a method for migrating a microservice on a cloud platform, wherein the cloud platform is configured to manage an instance that provides a microservice, the method comprising:
obtaining, from a first configuration center (a compute node) running on a first instance, stored first microservice configuration information of a target microservice; (Fig. 5 illustrates one or more compute nodes 510 hosting containers for providing “instances of applications (¶s [0002]-[0005], Furthermore, ¶ [0042] discloses component 218 that utilizes microservice feature extractor component 226 to extract features (e.g., characteristics, attributes, properties, traits, parameters, and the like) corresponding to each respective compute node of compute nodes 222)
generating second microservice configuration information of a migrated target microservice based on the first microservice configuration information; and (¶ [0077] discloses “migrate containers between compute node 510 and compute node 512 based on relationships and dependencies between microservice 514 and one or more other microservices of the plurality of different microservices”. )
sending the second microservice configuration information to a second configuration center (different compute node) running on a second instance, (¶ [0077] discloses “migrate containers between compute node 510 and compute node 512 based on relationships and dependencies between microservice 514 and one or more other microservices of the plurality of different microservices”.)
wherein the second configuration center is configured to store configuration information of the migrated target microservice. ( ¶ [0077] discloses “migrate containers between compute node 510 and compute node 512 based on relationships and dependencies between microservice 514 and one or more other microservices of the plurality of different microservices”.
Pamidala does not distinctly disclose a target microservice based on updated versions.
However, Mukkamala discloses that. In particular, it discloses the following:
obtaining, from a first configuration center (data source) running on a first instance, stored first microservice configuration information of a target microservice; (¶ [0042] discloses an existing data source that stores a microservice where the system is further configured to identify a microservice and “determine thereby a level of correlation” before deploying updated new versions of microservices ¶ [0032] )
generating second microservice configuration information of a migrated target microservice based on the first microservice configuration information; and (¶ [0042] further discloses that “in response to the level of correlation exceeding a threshold level” the system can “invoke a production environment migration of microservice request processing from an instantiation of the identified microservice operatively coupled to the existing data source toward an instantiation of the identified microservice operatively coupled to the new data source” )
sending the second microservice configuration information to a second configuration center (new data source) running on a second instance, (¶ [0042] the system can “invoke a production environment migration of microservice request processing from an instantiation of the identified microservice operatively coupled to the existing data source toward an instantiation of the identified microservice operatively coupled to the new data source” )
wherein the second configuration center is configured to store configuration information of the migrated target microservice. (¶ [0042] the system can “invoke a production environment migration of microservice request processing from an instantiation of the identified microservice operatively coupled to the existing data source toward an instantiation of the identified microservice operatively coupled to the new data source” )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Pamidala and Mukkamala because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Mukkamala’s teaching of migrating microservice to a new data source would enhance Pamidala 's system by providing client with a better and newer version of microservices, thus enhancing product services.
As per claim(s) 2, 13, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein the generating second microservice configuration information of a migrated target microservice based on the first microservice configuration information comprises: performing format conversion on the first microservice configuration information of the target microservice, to generate the second microservice configuration information corresponding to a microservice type of the second configuration center. (Mukkamala: ¶ [0042] discloses an existing data source that stores a microservice where the system is further configured to identify a microservice and “determine thereby a level of correlation” before deploying updated new versions of microservices ¶ [0032] )
As per claim(s) 3, 14, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein the method further comprises: bringing the first configuration center offline in response to a first offline instruction. (Mukkamala: migration toward using the new data source instead of the existing data source may be invoked ¶ [0040] Alternatively, use of an existing data source being replaced by a corresponding new data source ¶ [0007] )
As per claim(s) 4, 15, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein before the sending the second microservice configuration information to a second configuration center running on a second instance, the method further comprises:
obtaining a correspondence between the second instance and the first configuration center; and (Pamidala: storage 108 may store identifiers and network addresses for a plurality of different client compute node devices, identifiers for a plurality of different microservices, identifiers for a plurality of containers, intra-node feature data, inter-node feature data,¶ [0030], identifiers ¶ [0040] )
creating the second instance based on the second microservice configuration information and the correspondence. (Pamidala: migration of microservice between different compute nodes are done using identifier as explained by at least ¶s [0030], [0040] )
As per claim(s) 5, 16, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein the obtaining a correspondence between the second instance and the first configuration center comprises: obtaining a correspondence between an identifier of the second instance and the first configuration center, wherein the identifier comprises at least one of an internet protocol IP address and an instance ID. (Pamidala: storage 108 may store identifiers and network addresses for a plurality of different client compute node devices, identifiers for a plurality of different microservices, identifiers for a plurality of containers, intra-node feature data, inter-node feature data,¶ [0030], identifiers ¶ [0040])
As per claim(s) 6, 17, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein the method further comprises:
providing a first configuration interface, wherein the first configuration interface is configured to receive a configuration center management policy set by a user, and (Pamidala: Fig. 1 illustrates client for which service level agreements are provided ¶[0066] based on at least “defined policy constraints” ¶ [005] )
the configuration center management policy is used to switch configuration monitoring of the target microservice from the first configuration center to the second configuration center. (Pamidala discloses a learning component that analyzes extracted intra-node features 228 and inter-node features 230 to determine and generate optimal container orchestration policies such as container scaling (i.e., scaling up or scaling down of containers) within compute nodes 222 and container migration between certain of compute nodes 222 to increase microservice performance and decrease network latency. Machine learning component 218 directs orchestration component 232 to implement the determined optimal container orchestration policies; ¶ [0044] )
As per claim(s) 7, 18, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein a service type of the first configuration center is different from the service type of the second configuration center. (Mukkamala: new versions, or modifications to existing versions so as to converge operation toward production microservices operations; ¶ [0032] Also, new service capacity ¶[0028]) & (Pamidala: ¶ [0044])
As per claim(s) 8, 19, Pamidala as modified discloses a method 8. (Original) The method according to claim 7, wherein before generating the second microservice configuration information of the migrated target microservice based on the first microservice configuration information that is of the target microservice and that is stored in the first configuration center, the method further comprises: providing a second configuration interface, wherein the second configuration interface is configured to receive the service type that is of the second configuration center and that is set by the user. (Pamidala: optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service, such as, for example, storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts. Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service. These service types are arranged vis-a-vis service level agreements ¶ [0066] )
As per claim(s) 9, 20, Pamidala as modified discloses a method 9. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
sending a first microservice registration request to a first registration center, wherein the first microservice registration request is used to request to register the migrated target microservice with the first registration center, and microservice registration with the first registration center has been performed on the target microservice; and (Mukkamala: each of the microservices 112 within the production environment 102P is registered with the discovery server 104 so that the discovery server 104 is aware of the communications and other resources associated with the application requests used to invoke the various production environment microservices 112; ¶ [0026] )
sending a second microservice registration request to a second registration center running on a third instance, wherein the second microservice registration request is used to request to register the migrated target microservice with the second registration center. (¶ [0037] discloses how microservices requests new versions coupled to new data sources 107 are registered through discovery server)
As per claim(s) 11, Pamidala as modified discloses a method wherein the first microservice configuration information comprises one or more of the following: a startup parameter of the target microservice, an identifier of the target microservice, a quantity of threads related to the target microservice, a cache size related to the target microservice, active data, a blocklist, or a trustlist. (Pamidala: identifiers for a plurality of different microservices; ¶ [0030] )
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication No. 2022/0164186 (hereinafter, “Pamidala”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0413923 (hereinafter, “Mukkamala”) and further view of U.S. Publication No 2024/0004652 (hereinafter, “Tang”) .
As per claim 10, Pamidal as modified does not distinctly discloses wherein the method further comprises: bringing the first registration center offline in response to a second offline instruction.
However, Tang explicitly discloses wherein the method further comprises: bringing the first registration center offline in response to a second offline instruction. (¶ [003] discloses an application registration center that can manage an application instance to be online or offline based on “control instruction” ¶ [004] )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Pamidala as modified and Tang because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Tang’s teaching of control instruction that controls the state of application in a registration center would enhance Pamidala's as modified system by minimizing risks, thus enhancing computer environment.
Conclusion
With respect to any newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP §714.02 and § 2163.06. For example, when responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
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 12, this claim is substantially equivalent to method claim 1, because the additional feature(s) are present on any off the shelf general-purpose computer. Therefore, for at least this reason, claim 12 also stands rejected. Indeed, at least Figure(s) 1-3, 6 best illustrates a communication unit and processor unit.
Prosecution Insights