DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on December 31, 2025 in this application Manoharan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 19/061,605 (Filed 2/24/2025), claiming priority to Manoharan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 17/891,876 (Filed 8/19/2022) now U.S. Patent No 12,260,203 claiming priority to Manoharan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 16/519,734 (Filed July 23, 2019) now U.S. Patent No. 11,422,785 (“Manoharan”). Claims 2 – 21 were pending. Claims 2, 9, 12, and 16 are amended. Claims 2 – 21 are pending.
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pg. 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks (“Remarks”) stating that the claim amendments overcome the Double Patenting rejections, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112. The limitations of the parent patents include deploying the first and second application instances based on the data location.
2. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 10 - 11 of the Remarks stating that McMullen fails to teach deploying the first and second applications based on the data locations, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 § Claim 1.
McMullen teaches that in response to a user request for data the user’s request is directed to a particular cache node or nodes that contain the requested data and if the request requires processing by one or more applications, then multiple apps may be deployed to the particular cache node(s) as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0033 – 0037 & 0027 - 0029 (data requests are directed to the cache nodes that contain the data and then application[s] are executed on those cache nodes in response to the request to process the data).
Therefore, the prior art teaches deploying the first and second application instances based on the data location.
Claim Objections
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objection made to claim 12 is withdrawn.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of parent U.S. Patent Nos. 12,260,203 and 11,422,785 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Patents anticipate the claims of the instant Application.
Dependent claims 3 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 21 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,260,203 and 11,422,785 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the Patents and the art used in the dependent claims and associated motivation (see infra).
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.
Claims 2 – 5 and 7 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0272179 (Published September 5, 2019, filed March 4, 2019) (“McMullen”), in view of Raney, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0116110 (Published April 18, 2019, filed October 13, 2017) (“Raney”).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2 McMullen teaches the invention as claimed a system, comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; and one or more hardware processors coupled with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to:
receive a request for a computer service from a user device, wherein the computer service comprises a first task associated with processing a first set of data and a second task associated with processing a second set of data; {Request for a particular data, such as an image, is sent to a content delivery network which hosts the data and the CDN breaks the request down into multiple sub-requests which are executed by various application nodes to generate the particular data requested. McMullen at ¶¶ 0019, 0020, 0042, 0050. The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. Id. at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions).}
based on the request and in response to determining that the first set of data is stored on a first set of computer devices, deploy a first application to the first set of computer devices; based on the request and in response to determining that the second set of data is stored on a second set of computer devices deploy a second application to the second set of computer devices; Page 3of6{In response to a user request for data the user’s request is directed to particular cache node or nodes that contain the requested data, where if the request requires processing by one or more applications then multiple apps may be deployed to the particular cache node(s) as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0033 – 0037 & 0027 - 0029 (data requests are directed to the cache nodes that contain the data and then application[s] are executed on those cache nodes in response to the request to process the data.); id. at ¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests); id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests).}
instruct the first application deployed on the first set of computer devices to process the first set of data stored in the first set of computer devices, wherein the first application is configured to generate [intermediate] data; … and provide, to the user device, a response to the request for the computer service based on the output data. {The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. McMullen at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions); ¶¶ 0041, 0042, 0049, 0067 (app deployment in a container that will execute in the CDN cache environment); id. at ¶¶ 0051, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0059 (deploy in response to request); id. at ¶¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests); id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests); id. at ¶¶ 0047 & 0052 (An applications may suspend processing until the required intermediate data is available for the application).}
However, McMullen does not explicitly teach the limitation:
generate intermediate data based on processing the first set of data; receive an indication that the intermediate data generated by the first application is available; instruct the second application deployed on the second set of computer devices to produce, upon receiving the intermediate data generated by the first application, output data based on processing the intermediate data and the second set of data stored on the second set of computer devices;{Raney does teach this limitation. Raney teaches that the containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught by McMullen includes querying distributed data centers using identifiers for “applications 206/124” [sets of data] to identify nodes where the applications are present to deploy containerized applications, such as test agents and monitor agents, to cooperate and interchange processing data in order to work on the [data] applications. Raney at ¶ 0053 (querying for data); id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0019, 0046 (containerized test app is deployed to the same location as data it will work on, such as an application under test); id. at ¶ 0058 & 0047 (data center deployment); id. at ¶ 0054 & fig. 3B (360 – Test Traffic is the exchanging of intermediate data between application 208 and 210); id. at ¶ 0045 (containerized test app is removed when no longer needed).
McMullen and Raney 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 deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deploy services in 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 the use of a containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with querying for data, cooperative applications, and removing the app when its work is completed, as taught in Raney. Raney and McMullen teach deploying multiple apps as needed to complete tasks. McMullen at ¶ 0050; at Raney ¶ 0053. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the use of a containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with querying for data, cooperative applications, and removing the app when its work is completed, as taught in Raney, for the purpose of combining a known container clean-up method that removes apps that are completed with a method that also includes the deployment of multiple apps.}
Claims 3 and 17
With respect to claims 3 and 17, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the first set of computer devices comprises at least two devices operating in different operating environments. {Multiple apps may be deployed across multiple sets of (overlapping or distinct) edge nodes as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests; id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests).}
Claims 4 and 18
With respect to claims 4 and 18, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein deploying the first application to the first set of computer devices comprises: determining that a first device from the first set of computer devices operates in a first operating environment; and compiling programming code associated with the first application in a first format corresponding to the first operating environment. {Operating environment of the edge nodes might dictate particular programming code compilations for the first and for the second applications. McMullen at ¶¶ 0041 & 0043.}
Claims 5 and 19
With respect to claims 5 and 19, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein deploying the first application to the first set of computer devices further comprises: determining that a second device from the first set of computer devices operates in a second operating environment; and compiling the programming code associated with the first application in a second format corresponding to the second operating environment. {Operating environment of the edge nodes might dictate particular programming code compilations for the first and for the second applications. McMullen at ¶¶ 0041 & 0043.}
Claims 7, 15, and 20
With respect to claims 7, 15, and 20, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the computer service is associated with executing a computer simulation, and wherein the response comprises a result from executing the computing simulation. {Simulation agents, such as test agents and monitor agents, are deployed to cooperate and interchange processing data. Raney at ¶ 0053 (querying for data); id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0019, 0046 (containerized test app is deployed to the same location as data it will work on, such as an application under test); id. at ¶ 0058 & 0047 (data center deployment); id. at ¶ 0054 & fig. 3B (360 – Test Traffic is the exchanging of intermediate data between application 208 and 210); id. at ¶ 0045 (containerized test app is removed when no longer needed).}
Claims 8 and 21
With respect to claims 8 and 21, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein executing the instructions further causes the system to: determine that the first set of data is distributed across the first set of computer devices and that the second set of data is distributed across the second set of computer devices. {The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. McMullen at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions); id. at ¶¶ 0047 & 0052 (An applications may suspend processing until the required intermediate data is available for the application).}
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9 McMullen teaches the invention as claimed a method comprising:
determining, by a computer system and for a computer service associated with processing a first set of data using a first application and processing a second set of data using a second application, that the first set of data is distributed across a first set of computer devices and that the second set of data is distributed across a second set of computer devices;{Request for a particular data, such as an image, is sent to a content delivery network which hosts the data and the CDN breaks the request down into multiple sub-requests which are executed by various application nodes to generate the particular data requested. McMullen at ¶¶ 0019, 0020, 0042, 0050. The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. Id. at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions).}
in response to determining that the first set of data is distributed across the first set of computer devices, deploying, by the computer system, a first set of containers to the first set of computer devices, wherein each of the first set of containers comprises an instance of the first application configured to (i) process a corresponding portion of the first set of data stored on a corresponding computer device in the first set of computer devices and {In response to a user request for data the user’s request is directed to particular cache node or nodes that contain the requested data, where if the request requires processing by one or more applications then multiple apps may be deployed to the particular cache node(s) as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0033 – 0037 & 0027 - 0029 (data requests are directed to the cache nodes that contain the data and then application[s] are executed on those cache nodes in response to the request to process the data).
The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. McMullen at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions); ¶¶ 0041, 0042, 0049, 0067 (app deployment in a container that will execute in the CDN cache environment); id. at ¶¶ 0051, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0059 (deploy in response to request); id. at ¶¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests); id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests).}
in response to determining that the second set of data is distributed across the second set of computer devices, deploying, by the computer system, a second set of containers to the second set of computer devices, wherein each of the second set of containers comprises an instance of the second application configured to (i) detect an availability of the corresponding intermediate data generated by instances of the first application deployed on the first set of computer devices and … obtaining, by the computer system, output data from the second set of computer devices; and generating, by the computer system, content for the computer service based on the output data from the second set of computer devices. {In response to a user request for data the user’s request is directed to particular cache node or nodes that contain the requested data, where if the request requires processing by one or more applications, then multiple apps may be deployed to the particular cache node(s) as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0033 – 0037 & 0027 - 0029 (data requests are directed to the cache nodes that contain the data and then application[s] are executed on those cache nodes in response to the request to process the data).
Multiple apps may be deployed across multiple sets of edge nodes as needed to cooperate to complete the processing task as a sequence of sub-requests. McMullen at ¶¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests; id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests). The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. McMullen at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions); id. at ¶¶ 0047 & 0052 (An applications may suspend processing until the required intermediate data is available for the application).}
However, McMullen does not explicitly teach the limitation:
(ii) generate corresponding intermediate data;… (ii) in response to detecting that the corresponding intermediate data is available, process the corresponding intermediate data and a corresponding portion of the second set of data stored in a corresponding device in the second set of computer devices; {Raney does teach this limitation. Raney teaches that the containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught by McMullen includes querying distributed data centers using identifiers for “applications 206/124” [sets of data] to identify nodes where the applications are present to deploy containerized applications, such as test agents and monitor agents, to cooperate and interchange processing data in order to work on the [data] applications. Raney at ¶ 0053 (querying for data); id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0019, 0046 (containerized test app is deployed to the same location as data it will work on, such as an application under test); id. at ¶ 0058 & 0047 (data center deployment); id. at ¶ 0054 & fig. 3B (360 – Test Traffic is the exchanging of intermediate data between application 208 and 210); id. at ¶ 0045 (containerized test app is removed when no longer needed).
McMullen and Raney 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 deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deploy services in 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 the use of a containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with querying for data, cooperative applications, and removing the app when its work is completed, as taught in Raney. Raney and McMullen teach deploying multiple apps as needed to complete tasks. McMullen at ¶ 0050; at Raney ¶ 0053. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the use of a containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with querying for data, cooperative applications, and removing the app when its work is completed, as taught in Raney, for the purpose of combining a known container clean-up method that removes apps that are completed with a method that also includes the deployment of multiple apps.}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein each of the first set of containers includes a compiler, one or more libraries, and one or more runtime environments for executing the instance of the first application. {Runtime operating environment of the edge nodes might dictate particular programming code compilations for the first and for the second applications and use of particular API libraries. McMullen at ¶¶ 0029 – 0032, 0041, and 0043.}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein a first device in the first set of computer devices and a second device in the first set of computer devices operate in different computer environments, and wherein the deploying the first set of containers to the first set of computer devices comprises: determining that the first device operates in a first computer environment; compiling, for the first device, programming code associated with a first instance of the first application in a first format corresponding to the first computer environment; determining that the second device operates in a second computer environment; and compiling, for the second device, programming code associated with a second instance of the first application in a second format corresponding to the second computer environment. {Operating environment of the edge nodes might dictate particular programming code compilations for the first and for the second applications. McMullen at ¶¶ 0041 & 0043.}
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein a first device in the first set of computer devices and a second device in the first set of computer devices operate in different computer environments, and wherein the deploying the first set of containers to the first set of computer devices comprises: determining that the first device operates in a first computer environment; selecting a first runtime environment for executing a first instance of the first application on the first device; determining that the second device operates in a second computer environment; and selecting a second runtime environment for executing a second instance of the first application on the second device. {Runtime operating environment of the edge nodes might dictate particular programming code compilations for the first and for the second applications and use of particular API libraries. McMullen at ¶¶ 0029 – 0032, 0041, and 0043.}
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein at least one of the first application or the second application comprises a web server. {Cache node application may include a web server such as Apache. McMullen at ¶¶ 0019, 0025, 0051.}
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, including:
querying a distributed data storage system for the first set of data and the second set of data, wherein the determining that the first set of data is distributed across the first set of computer devices and that the second set of data is distributed across the second set of computer devices is based on the querying. {Determination on deployment target locations may be made, in part, based on information retrieved by querying a cloud management controller for the deployment information. Raney at ¶¶ 0015, 0016, 0021, 0022, 0052 - 0058.}
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16 McMullen teaches the invention as claimed a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause a machine to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for a computer service from a user device, wherein the computer service is associated with a first task for processing a first set of data and a second task for processing a second set of data;{Request for a particular data, such as an image, is sent to a content delivery network which hosts the data and the CDN breaks the request down into multiple sub-requests which are executed by various application nodes to generate the particular data requested. McMullen at ¶¶ 0019, 0020, 0042, 0050. The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. Id. at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions).}
based on the request, and in response to determining that the first set of data is stored on a first set of computer devices, deploying a first application to the first set of computer devices; based on the request and in response to determining that the second set of data is stored on a second set of computer devices, deploying a second application to a second set of computer devices; Page 3of6{In response to a user request for data the user’s request is directed to particular cache node or nodes that contain the requested data, where if the request requires processing by one or more applications then multiple apps may be deployed to the particular cache node(s) as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0033 – 0037 & 0027 - 0029 (data requests are directed to the cache nodes that contain the data and then application[s] are executed on those cache nodes in response to the request to process the data).
Multiple apps may be deployed across multiple sets of edge nodes as needed to complete the processing task. McMullen at ¶¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests; id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests).}
instructing the first application deployed on the first set of computer devices to process the first set of data stored in the first set of computer devices, wherein the first application is configured to generate [intermediate] data;… output data … and providing, to the user device, a response to the request for the computer service based on the output data. {The sequence of sub-requests can include a first http application in a virtual node that receives a user request, processes the request to obtain a video file from an origin server, identify a second application, and instruct the second application to resize the video file before outputting the file to the requestor. McMullen at ¶¶ 0047, 0048, 0061; id. at ¶ 0031 (applications interact with other instances via API functions); ¶¶ 0041, 0042, 0049, 0067 (app deployment in a container that will execute in the CDN cache environment); id. at ¶¶ 0051, 0052, 0055, 0058, 0059 (deploy in response to request); id. at ¶¶ 0020 (request may be broken down into multiple requests); id. at ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0066, 0070, 0076 (multiple physical edge nodes may each run apps that cooperate to execute the broken down multiple sub-requests); id. at ¶¶ 0047 & 0052 (An applications may suspend processing until the required intermediate data is available for the application).}.}
However, McMullen does not explicitly teach the limitation:
generate [intermediate] data based on processing the first set of data; instructing the second application deployed on the second set of computer devices to produce, in response to receiving an indication that the intermediate data is available, [output data] based on processing the intermediate data generated by the first application and the second set of data stored on the second set of computer devices; {Raney does teach this limitation. Raney teaches that the containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught by McMullen includes querying distributed data centers using identifiers for “applications 206/124” [sets of data] to identify nodes where the applications are present to deploy containerized applications, such as test agents and monitor agents, to cooperate and interchange processing data in order to work on the [data] applications. Raney at ¶ 0053 (querying for data); id. at ¶¶ 0040, 0019, 0046 (containerized test app is deployed to the same location as data it will work on, such as an application under test); id. at ¶ 0058 & 0047 (data center deployment); id. at ¶ 0054 & fig. 3B (360 – Test Traffic is the exchanging of intermediate data between application 208 and 210); id. at ¶ 0045 (containerized test app is removed when no longer needed).
McMullen and Raney 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 deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deploy services in 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 the use of a containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with querying for data, cooperative applications, and removing the app when its work is completed, as taught in Raney. Raney and McMullen teach deploying multiple apps as needed to complete tasks. McMullen at ¶ 0050; at Raney ¶ 0053. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the use of a containerized application deployed to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with querying for data, cooperative applications, and removing the app when its work is completed, as taught in Raney, for the purpose of combining a known container clean-up method that removes apps that are completed with a method that also includes the deployment of multiple apps.}
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, in view of Raney and Sun, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0327428 (Published October 13, 2022, filed June 4, 2019) (“Sun”).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, McMullen and Raney teach the invention as claimed, however McMullen and Raney do not explicitly teach:
wherein at least one of the first application or the second application comprises a machine learning model. {Sun does teach this limitation. Sun teaches that the containerized application deployed to CDN cache nodes, as taught by McMullen includes deploying machine learning models to edge nodes where they operate on the set of data that are local to the edge nodes on which the models are deployed. Sun at ¶¶ 0004 – 0007.
McMullen, Raney, and Sun 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 deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deploy services in content delivery environments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine deploying an application to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with where the application is a machine learning model, as taught in Sun. Raney and McMullen teach deploying multiple apps as needed to complete tasks. McMullen at ¶ 0050; at Raney ¶ 0053. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine deploying an application to a CDN cache node, as taught in McMullen, with where the application is a machine learning model, as taught in Sun, for the purpose of combining a known edge node application with a method that deployed needed applications to edge nodes.}
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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./ February 21, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199