DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed on 02/20/2025.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 20-21 are objected.
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:
an acquisition unit that acquires, a conflict determination unit that determines, an inputting unit that collectively inputs in claim 1, a storing unit that stores in claim 3, an addition unit that collectively adds in claim 4, a distribution determination unit that determines , a scale-out unit that performs scale-out in claim 5, a concentration determination unit that determines, a scale-up unit that performs scale-up in claim 6.
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.
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: (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); or (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 0220/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating (US 20220100585 A1) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20060056618 A1), hereafter Aggarwal.
Regarding claim 1, Keating teaches a configuration input device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to a specific communication device ([0041] the server or client device may receive, from a first computing process running on a computing platform, a first resource modification request to modify a resource of the computing platform);
a conflict determination unit that determines whether the plurality of configuration input
requests conflict with other configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device ([0044] the server or client device may determine, using the resource modification record, whether the second resource modification request conflicts with the first resource modification request); and
an inputting unit that collectively inputs a plurality of configurations corresponding to the plurality of configuration input requests to the specific communication device in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests do not conflict with the other configuration input requests ([0046] If the time period is equal or more than the predetermined threshold value, no notification may be generated, regardless of whether the resource modification requests conflict with each other. Examiner note: When determine whether the resource modification request is conflict, the resource modification request is not conflict is determined. Also, the resource modification request that does not meet the preset threshold is also considered as not conflict).
Keating does not teach collective inputs.
Aggarwal taches
collective inputs ([0050] If no resource request conflict exists, a received request is serviced).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, collective inputs for services, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 2, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input device according to claim 1, wherein Keating further teaches the acquisition unit collectively acquires the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device from a database that stores a plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices ([0035] In an illustrative example where an operator pattern service requests modification of a networking port on a container, the registration module may determine or receive as input the identification of the operator pattern service, determine or receive as input the identification of the resource, determine or receive as input the serialized current state of the resource, and determine or receive as input the serialized modified state of the resource).
Regarding claim 3, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input device according to claim 2, Keating further teaches:
a storing unit that stores the plurality of configuration input requests acquired by the acquisition unit in another database, wherein the conflict determination unit acquires the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device from the another database ([0036] responsive to detection module detecting a modification requested or performed by an operator pattern service, query module may query modifications database to determine whether another operator pattern service is currently regulating a resource associated with the detected modification).
Regarding claim 4, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input device according to claim 2, Keating further teaches:
an addition unit that collectively adds a plurality of results of inputting the plurality of configurations to the database ([0015] Querying the database allows for the discovery of whether multiple operator pattern services are making conflicting modifications to a resource or to the parameters of a resource).
Regarding claim 5, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input device according to claim 2, Aggarwal further teaches:
a distribution determination unit that determines whether the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are distributed to the plurality of communication devices ([0026] load balancer, in conjunction with automated provisioning controller, may send a message, referred to herein as a resource request, directly to provisioning engine upon detecting a shortage (or excess) of allocated resources); and
a scale-out unit that performs scale-out of a plurality of resources to be allocated to the plurality of communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are distributed to the plurality of communication devices ([0026] In response to the resource request, provisioning engine according to the present invention is enabled to select the available resource in resource pool that is best able to meet the requirements or preferences indicated in the resource request).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, allocate resources per request, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 6, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input device according to claim 2, Aggarwal further teaches:
a concentration determination unit that determines whether the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on one of the plurality of communication devices ([0032] As depicted in FIG. 3, there are different types of demand-based resource requests that conflict resolver 301 may receive and process); and
a scale-up unit that performs scale-up of resources to be allocated to the one of the communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on the one of the communication devices ([0033] Specifically, conflict resolver 301 is configured to access a set of user-specified priority preferences 308, perhaps in conjunction with other information, to resolve resource request conflicts when multiple resource requests are pending and to select one of the resource request for servicing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, allocate resources per request, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 7, Keating teaches a configuration input method to be executed by a computer, the configuration input method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to a specific communication device ([0041] the server or client device may receive, from a first computing process running on a computing platform, a first resource modification request to modify a resource of the computing platform);
determining whether the plurality of configuration input requests conflict with other configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device ([0044] the server or client device may determine, using the resource modification record, whether the second resource modification request conflicts with the first resource modification request); and
collectively inputting a plurality of configurations corresponding to the plurality of configuration input requests to the specific communication device in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests do not conflict with the another configuration input requests ([0046] If the time period is equal or more than the predetermined threshold value, no notification may be generated, regardless of whether the resource modification requests conflict with each other. Examiner note: When determine whether the resource modification request is conflict, the resource modification request is not conflict is determined. Also, the resource modification request that does not meet the preset threshold is also considered as not conflict).
Keating does not teach collectively inputting.
Aggarwal taches
collectively inputting ([0050] If no resource request conflict exists, a received request is serviced).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, collective inputs for services, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 9, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input method according to claim 9, Keating further teaches:
the plurality of configuration input requests acquired by the acquisition unit is stored in another database, wherein the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device is acquired from the another database [0036] responsive to detection module detecting a modification requested or performed by an operator pattern service, query module may query modifications database to determine whether another operator pattern service is currently regulating a resource associated with the detected modification).
Regarding claim 11, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input method according to claim 9, Keating further teaches:
a plurality of results of inputting the plurality of configurations is collectively added to the database ([0015] Querying the database allows for the discovery of whether multiple operator pattern services are making conflicting modifications to a resource or to the parameters of a resource).
Regarding claim 12, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input method according to claim 9, Aggarwal further teaches:
determining whether the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are distributed to the plurality of communication devices ([0026] load balancer, in conjunction with automated provisioning controller, may send a message, referred to herein as a resource request, directly to provisioning engine upon detecting a shortage (or excess) of allocated resources); and
performing scale-out of a plurality of resources to be allocated to the plurality of communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are distributed to the plurality of communication devices ([0026] In response to the resource request, provisioning engine according to the present invention is enabled to select the available resource in resource pool that is best able to meet the requirements or preferences indicated in the resource request).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, allocate resources per request, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 13, Keating and Aggarwal teach the configuration input method according to claim 9, Keating further teaches:
determining whether the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on one of the plurality of communication devices ([0032] As depicted in FIG. 3, there are different types of demand-based resource requests that conflict resolver 301 may receive and process); and
a scale-up unit that performs scale-up of resources to be allocated to the one of the communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on the one of the communication devices ([0033] Specifically, conflict resolver 301 is configured to access a set of user-specified priority preferences 308, perhaps in conjunction with other information, to resolve resource request conflicts when multiple resource requests are pending and to select one of the resource request for servicing); and
performing scale-up of resources to be allocated to the one of the communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on the one of the communication devices ([0033] Specifically, conflict resolver 301 is configured to access a set of user-specified priority preferences 308, perhaps in conjunction with other information, to resolve resource request conflicts when multiple resource requests are pending and to select one of the resource request for servicing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, allocate resources per request, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 14, Keating teaches a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer-executable program instructions that when executed by a processor cause a computer to execute a configuration input method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to a specific communication device ([0041] the server or client device may receive, from a first computing process running on a computing platform, a first resource modification request to modify a resource of the computing platform);
determining whether the plurality of configuration input requests conflict with other configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device ([0044] the server or client device may determine, using the resource modification record, whether the second resource modification request conflicts with the first resource modification request); and
collectively inputting a plurality of configurations corresponding to the plurality of configuration input requests to the specific communication device in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests do not conflict with the another configuration input requests ([0046] If the time period is equal or more than the predetermined threshold value, no notification may be generated, regardless of whether the resource modification requests conflict with each other. Examiner note: When determine whether the resource modification request is conflict, the resource modification request is not conflict is determined. Also, the resource modification request that does not meet the preset threshold is also considered as not conflict).
Keating does not teach collective inputs.
Aggarwal taches
collective inputs ([0050] If no resource request conflict exists, a received request is serviced).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, collective inputs for services, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 15, Keating and Aggarwal teach the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 14 wherein Keating further teaches the configuration input method further comprises:
wherein the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device is collectively acquired from a database that stores a plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices ([0035] In an illustrative example where an operator pattern service requests modification of a networking port on a container, the registration module may determine or receive as input the identification of the operator pattern service, determine or receive as input the identification of the resource, determine or receive as input the serialized current state of the resource, and determine or receive as input the serialized modified state of the resource).
Regarding claim 16, Keating and Aggarwal teach the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 15, wherein Aggarwal further teaches the configuration input method further comprises:
wherein the plurality of configuration input requests acquired by the acquisition unit is stored in another database, wherein the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to the specific communication device is acquired from the another database ([0036] responsive to detection module detecting a modification requested or performed by an operator pattern service, query module may query modifications database to determine whether another operator pattern service is currently regulating a resource associated with the detected modification).
Regarding claim 17, Keating and Aggarwal teach the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 15 wherein Keating further teaches the configuration input method further comprises:
wherein a plurality of results of inputting the plurality of configurations is collectively added to the database ([0015] Querying the database allows for the discovery of whether multiple operator pattern services are making conflicting modifications to a resource or to the parameters of a resource).
Regarding claim 18, Keating and Aggarwal teach the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 15 wherein Aggarwal further teaches the configuration input method further comprises:
determining whether the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are distributed to the plurality of communication devices ([0026] load balancer, in conjunction with automated provisioning controller, may send a message, referred to herein as a resource request, directly to provisioning engine upon detecting a shortage (or excess) of allocated resources); and
performing scale-out of a plurality of resources to be allocated to the plurality of communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are distributed to the plurality of communication devices ([0026] In response to the resource request, provisioning engine according to the present invention is enabled to select the available resource in resource pool that is best able to meet the requirements or preferences indicated in the resource request).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, allocate resources per request, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Regarding claim 19, Keating and Aggarwal teach the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 15 wherein Aggarwal further teaches the configuration input method further comprises:
determining whether the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on one of the plurality of communication devices ([0032] As depicted in FIG. 3, there are different types of demand-based resource requests that conflict resolver 301 may receive and process; and
performing scale-up of resources to be allocated to the one of the communication devices in a case where it is determined that the plurality of configuration input requests corresponding to any of the plurality of communication devices are concentrated on the one of the communication devices ([0033] Specifically, conflict resolver 301 is configured to access a set of user-specified priority preferences 308, perhaps in conjunction with other information, to resolve resource request conflicts when multiple resource requests are pending and to select one of the resource request for servicing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to include in the Keating disclosure, allocate resources per request, as taught by Aggarwal. One would be motivated to do so that resources from a pool of available resources are dynamically allocated as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20-21 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.
Regarding claim 20, Keating and Aggarwal fail teach the configuration input device according to claim 1, wherein if a delay to the plurality of configuration input requests is detected, a resource controller adds an additional device control unit for a case in which a number of device control units times a number of communication devices that are simultaneously controlled is less than a total number of device control units and the plurality of configuration input requests is distributed among all device controls units. Claim 21 depends on claim 20 and is also objected accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gowada (US 20230297475).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 5712703037. 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.
/ANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights