DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 - 20 filed in this application Griffin et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/000,898, (Filed December 24, 2024).
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 U.S.C. §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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 - 3, 8 – 10, and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0409677 (Published December 31, 2020, filed June 27, 2019) (“Fernandez”) in view of Burgazzoli et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0272440 (Published August 27, 2020, filed February 26, 2019) (“Burgazzoli”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 Fernandez teaches the invention as claimed including a system comprising:
a processing device; and a memory device including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: receiving a first version of a software application stored in a first cloud environment; receiving a second version of the software application stored in a second cloud environment; determining a set of similarities between the first version and the second version; generating a first container layer based on the set of similarities, the first container layer being a base container layer for the software application; generating a second container layer for the first version based on a first difference between the set of similarities and the first version; {Two versions of container images may be compared using image differencing to identify a common [similar] base OS layer present in both base container image 412 and container image 402 as well as a plurality of additional layers only present in container image 402 that are differences between the two container versions. Fernandez at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0028, 0045, 0053 - 0055, 0056, 0058; id. at fig. 4.}
However, Fernandez doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
and storing the first container layer and the second container layer in a physical server, the first container layer and the second container layer being usable to execute the first version of the software application by enabling the first container layer and the second container layer in a container. {Burgazzoli does teach this limitation. Burgazzoli teaches using similarity and difference to identify base layer and different layers between container images, as taught in Fernandez, may include where a dependency registry stores the identified layers containing dependencies [differences] required to execute the base application container image, where the layers can be retrieved from the registry or local dependency cache, and combined into a container with the base application container image in order the execute the application. Burgazzoli at ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0026, 0032, 0036 – 0038.
Fernandez and Burgazzoli are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software version management, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to efficiently store container layers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using similarity and difference to identify base layer and different layers between container images, as taught in Fernandez with using the difference layers to reconstruct the original container for deployment, as taught in Burgazzoli. Burgazzoli teaches that a graphical development greatly simplifies the development process. Id. at ¶ 0019. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using similarity and difference to identify base layer and different layers between container images, as taught in Fernandez with using the difference layers to reconstruct the original container for deployment, as taught in Burgazzoli, for the purpose of using a known space-saving method of layer management with a method that generates difference layers for storage.}
Claims 2, 9, and 16
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 Fernandez and Burgazzoli teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the operations further comprise: generating a third container layer for the second version based on a second difference between the set of similarities and the second version; generating a fourth container layer for the second version based on a third difference between the first version and the second version; {Two versions of container images may be compared using image differencing to identify a common [similar] base OS layer present in both base container image 412 and container image 402 as well as a plurality of additional layers only present in container image 402 that are differences between the two container versions. Fernandez at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0028, 0045, 0053 - 0055, 0056, 0058; id. at fig. 4.}
and storing the third container layer and the fourth container layer in the physical server, the third container layer and the fourth container layer being usable to execute the second version of the software application by enabling the first container layer, the third container layer, and the fourth container layer in the container. {A dependency registry stores the identified layers containing dependencies [differences] required to execute the base application container image, where the layers can be retrieved from the registry or local dependency cache, and combined into a container with the base application container image in order the execute the application. Burgazzoli at ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0026, 0032, 0036 – 0038.}
Claims 3, 10, and 17
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17 Fernandez and Burgazzoli teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a set of configuration parameters associated with the first version of the software application in the first cloud environment; generating a fifth container layer based on the set of configuration parameters; {Two versions of container images may be compared using image differencing to identify a common [similar] base OS layer present in both base container image 412 and container image 402 as well as a plurality of additional layers (including operating system parameters) only present in container image 402 that are differences between the two container versions. Fernandez at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0028, 0045, 0053 – 0055 (operating system parameters), 0056, 0058; id. at fig. 4.}
and storing the fifth container layer in the physical server, the fifth container layer being usable to execute the first version of the software application by enabling the first container layer and the fifth container layer in the container. {A dependency registry stores the identified layers containing dependencies [differences] required to execute the base application container image, where the layers can be retrieved from the registry or local dependency cache, and combined into a container with the base application container image in order the execute the application. Burgazzoli at ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0026, 0032, 0036 – 0038.}
Claim 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Burgazzoli, and Hou et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0325080 (Published October 12, 2023, filed April 8, 2022) (“Hou”).
Claims 4, 11, and 18
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18 Fernandez and Burgazzoli teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request to execute the first version of the software application; in response to the request, enabling the first container layer in the container using a first feature [flag] associated with the first container layer; in response to the request, enabling the second container layer in the container using a second feature [flag] associated with the second container layer; and executing the container having the first container layer and the second container layer enabled. {A dependency registry stores the identified layers containing dependencies [differences] required to execute the base application container image, where the layers can be retrieved from the registry or local dependency cache, and combined into a container with the base application container image in order the execute the application. Burgazzoli at ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0026, 0032, 0036 – 0038.}
However, Fernandez doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
flags {Hou does teach this limitation. Hou teaches that managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers [features], as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli, may include where flags can be used with Docker to identify layers, such as when identifying layers that require updating before they are deployed. Hou at ¶¶ 0003, 0007, 0029, 0081, 0082.
Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Hou are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software version management, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to efficiently manage container layers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli with using flags to identify Docker layers, as taught in Hou. Burgazzoli teaches that a graphical development greatly simplifies the development process. Id. at ¶ 0019. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli with using flags to identify Docker layers, as taught in Hou, for the purpose of using a known docker layer parameter with a system that requires specifying layer parameters.}
Claim 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Burgazzoli, Hou, and Suarez et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0177877 (Published June 22, 2017, filed December 18, 2015) (“Suarez”).
Claims 5, 12, and 19
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19 Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Hou teaches the invention as claimed however, Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Hou doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the request, determining that a first container associated with the second version of the software application is executing; and prior to executing the container, generating a second container ...wherein the container comprises the second container. {Suarez does teach this limitation. Suarez teaches that managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Hou, may include where the container composed of layers may be deployed to different geographic regions and that the deployment may involve first deploying the new container and then stopping execution of the old container. Suarez at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0093 – 0095 & 0104.
Fernandez, Burgazzoli, Hou, and Suarez are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software version management, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to efficiently manage containers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Hou with deploying to particular locations using a rollover deployment, as taught in Suarez. Suarez teaches that containers benefit from deploying to particular geographic regions and via rollover to optimize location and testing. Id. at ¶¶ 0093 & 0104. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli with using flags to identify Docker layers, as taught in Hou, for the purpose of using a known docker layer parameter with a system that requires specifying layer parameters.}
including the first container layer and the second container layer being enabled, {A dependency registry stores the identified layers containing dependencies [differences] required to execute the base application container image, where the layers can be retrieved from the registry or local dependency cache, and combined into a container with the base application container image in order the execute the application. Burgazzoli at ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0026, 0032, 0036 – 0038.}
Claims 6 and 13
With respect to claims 6 and 13 Fernandez, Burgazzoli, Hou, and Suarez teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to executing the second container, deactivating the first container. {A dependency registry stores the identified layers containing dependencies [differences] required to execute the base application container image, where the layers can be retrieved from the registry or local dependency cache, and combined into a container with the base application container image in order the execute the application. Burgazzoli at ¶¶ 0022, 0025, 0026, 0032, 0036 – 0038.}
Claim 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Burgazzoli, and Suarez et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0177877 (Published June 22, 2017, filed December 18, 2015) (“Suarez”).
Claims 7, 14, and 20
With respect to claims 7, 14, and 20 Fernandez and Burgazzoli teaches the invention as claimed however, Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Hou doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the first cloud environment is provided by a different entity than the second cloud environment, or wherein the first cloud environment is provided by a same entity as the second cloud environment and the first cloud environment is associated with a different geological region than the second cloud environment. {Suarez does teach this limitation. Suarez teaches that managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli, may include where the container composed of layers may be deployed to different geographic regions and that the deployment may involve first deploying the new container and then stopping execution of the old container. Suarez at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0093 – 0095 & 0104.
Fernandez, Burgazzoli, and Suarez are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software version management, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to efficiently manage containers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli with deploying to particular locations using a rollover deployment, as taught in Suarez. Suarez teaches that containers benefit from deploying to particular geographic regions and via rollover to optimize location and testing. Id. at ¶¶ 0093 & 0104. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine managing container layers and deploying by specifying desired container image layers, as taught in Fernandez and Burgazzoli with deploying to particular locations using a rollover deployment, as taught in Suarez, for the purpose of using a known geographically flexible container deployment method with a container management method that requires deploying containers.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
//T.H./ September 26, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights