DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 04/25/2025 for application number 19/193,154. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Claims, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS, and Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 would be allowed once the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and claim objections were overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
TRAN et al., US 2024/0080264 A1, discloses a computer-implemented method for managing a fleet of computing infrastructures ([0037] discloses operation 200 of the system 10 of Fig. 1 (i.e. a computer-implemented method), for deploying a containerized application 12 from a central application management hub (e.g., control plane 30) to a plurality of cloud environments 14 a, b, c (i.e. the cloud environments 14 a, b, c make up the fleet of computing infrastructures that are managed by the deployment process)), each computing infrastructure comprising an infrastructure orchestration module configured to deploy and manage applications using declarative configuration files that define a state of each application, associated dependencies, and components ([0026] discloses git repository 310 having Kubernetes manifests and pushing manifests to server), the method comprising: accessing a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, upon being operated by a processor, causes the execution of: storing and managing, by a version control system module, a configuration file for each of the computing infrastructures within a configuration repository ([0026] discloses git repository 310 having Kubernetes manifests and pushing manifests to server); storing and managing, by a hierarchical configuration module, data of the configuration files in a hierarchical manner; defining, by an assembling module, dependencies between the components and libraries; monitoring, by a configuration module, the configuration repository of the version control system module for updates to the configuration files ([0026] discloses controllers 27 associated with their respective operator service 25 a, b, c, d can be responsible for continuously monitoring all running applications 12 and comparing their live state to the desired state specified in the git repository 310), defining the configuration of the computing infrastructures to include dependencies and interactions between the components, and applying the updated configuration files to the computer infrastructures ([0035] discloses the file system layers 11 in container applications 12 contain all the software components, operating system libraries of the software—basically all the components 12 a, b, c, d, e used to run the software inside the container 12).
GLOVER, US 2016/0232158 A1, discloses generating, by the hierarchical configuration module, a template for the declarative configuration files of the computing infrastructures, the template configured to define the configuration and interactions of components (Claim 1 discloses constructing a data structure (i.e. template) tabulating each of the sets of extracted RSID values with a corresponding identifier that refers to the document file (i.e. interaction of components) of the corresponding version and store the data structure in computer memory).
NARA et al., US 2020/0012820 A1, discloses at predetermined intervals, accessing the corresponding artifacts stored in the configuration repository ([0074] discloses the cache controller 18 of the hardware part 28 accesses the setting location corresponding to each of the setting items registered in the cache setting information 18A at intervals of predetermined periods of time or at intervals of predetermined timings, and registers the setting value registered at the setting location in the cache setting information 18A).
HENNESS et al., US 2010/0268784 A1, discloses at predetermined intervals, the configuration module is further configured to automatically deploy the configurations of the computing infrastructures ([0025] discloses the provider may transmit each message automatically at a predetermined time period (i.e. deploy at a predetermined time period), or may be configured to transmit messages upon the occurrence of a particular event, such as the installation of new hardware in the network to which the provider is connected, for example; Abstract discloses each message having descriptive data, a sequence identifier, and a sequence number, verifying by the consumer the presence, format, and continuity of each sequence identifier and sequence number in each message, and upon verification, updating the consumer with the descriptive data in each message).
GREER et al., US 2018/0203844 A1, discloses accessing the corresponding artifacts stored in the configuration repository and executing the declarative configuration files of the computing infrastructures ([0079] the testing software 102 is configured to support the intelligent correlation of artifact versions to that of the application under test 110 being tested; accordingly, for the current version of the application under test 110, the testing software 102 has user controls to allow selection of the artifacts 108 of the 1-5 testcases 104 to be tested on the current version of the application under test because the artifacts 108 of the testcases 104 each have reference to the current version and/or earlier version of the application under test 110,).
Elsherif et al., 2020/0225929 A1, discloses a template for the declarative configuration files of the computing infrastructures, the template configured to define the configuration and interactions of components ([0018] discloses a package file 136 can include a version 139 of the application, one or more configuration settings 143 related to an application installable with the package file 136, and an installer 146 for the application (i.e. defining configurations and interactions of components); the configuration settings 143 represent how an application should be configured when installed using the installer 146).
However, none of the references, individually nor in combination, explicitly teach generating, by the hierarchical configuration module, a template for the declarative configuration files of the computing infrastructures, the template configured to define the configuration and interactions of components and create artifacts corresponding to the declarative configuration files of the computing infrastructures, in which the artifacts are stored in the configuration repository of the version control system module; wherein, for each of the computing infrastructures, at predetermined intervals, the configuration module is further configured to automatically deploy the configurations of the computing infrastructures by accessing the corresponding artifacts stored in the configuration repository and executing the declarative configuration files of the computing infrastructures, in combination with the remaining limitations as required by Claim 1.
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is allowed accordingly.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 depend on Claims 1 and 12, respectively, and are allowed over the prior art accordingly.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph numbers from [00010] to [000480] should instead read [0010] to [0480] to maintain consistency in formatting.
The term “data center” in paragraph [0004] is spelled “datacenter” in paragraph [0002], and “data centre” in paragraph [00062]. While all three spellings are acceptable, one spelling should be chosen and maintained throughout the Specification for consistency.
Paragraph [00041] recites, “…the present technology relates to a processing system for for managing at least one fleet of computing infrastructures,” (emphasis added), and should instead read, “…the present technology relates to a processing system for managing at least one fleet of computing infrastructures” to remove the extraneous “for” as currently presented.
Paragraph [00050] recites, “…managing at least one fleet of computing infrastructures, ), each computing infrastructure…” (emphasis added), and should instead read, “…managing at least one fleet of computing structures, each computing infrastructure…” to correct the typographical error.
Paragraph [000116] recites, “…using the metric storing module and the metric aggregator module the step comprising:” and should instead read, “…using the metric storing module and the metric aggregator module, the step comprising:” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [000116] recites, “Storing, The metric storing module…“Storing, The metric aggregator module” (emphasis added), and should instead read, “Storing, by the metric storing module… Storing, by the metric aggregator module” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [000216] recites, “Storing and managing configuration data in therepository,” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “Storing and managing configuration in the repository.” (emphasis added)
Paragraph [000228] recites, “Optionally, Implementing Security Measures: tis optional step step involves,” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “Optionally, Implementing Security Measures: this step involves” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [000250] recites, “DC3cX, X being a number greater or equel to one,” (emphasis added), and should instead read, “DC3cX, X being a number greater or equal to one” (emphasis added).
Paragraph [000340] recites, “This qspect revolves around the control mechanism” (emphasis added), and should instead read, “This aspect revolves around the control mechanism” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Regarding Claim 7, lines 7-9 recite, “consolidating the metrics at a primary computing infrastructure DC1 to provide an overall view of the status of all of the computing infrastructures managed by the primary computing infrastructure DC 1.” (emphasis added) However, “DC1” appears to be a reference character to the computing infrastructure, as illustrated in paragraph 000251 of the Specification, and thus should be enclosed within parentheses within the claim limitation.
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 make similar references to “DC1” with regards to the primary computing infrastructure, and are objected to accordingly.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 limitations are:
In Claim 1, such limitations are:
“an infrastructure orchestration module configured to deploy and manage applications”,
“storing and managing, by a version control system module, a configuration file for each of the computing infrastructures,”
“storing and managing, by a hierarchical configuration module, data of the configuration files in a hierarchical manner,”
“defining, by an assembling module, dependencies between the components and libraries,”
“monitoring, by a configuration module, the configuration repository of the version control module,”
“generating, by the hierarchical configuration module, a template,” and
“the configuration module is further configured to automatically deploy the configurations.”
In Claim 5, such limitations are: “a metric storing module configured to collected metrics data from the monitored computing infrastructure components,”
In Claim 6, such limitations are: “a metric aggregator module configured to aggregate the metrics data collected from the metric storing module,”
In Claim 11, such limitations are:
“a Configuration Management Database (CMDB) module that is configured to manage and store inventory data relating to the unprovisioned server and switch,”
“forwarding the configuration data from the CMDB module, via a communication module,”
“a Network Operations Gateway (NOG) module to manage and control the unprovisioned server and switch,”
“a deployment module configured to deploy the computing infrastructure in accordance with the CMDB module,”
In Clam 12, such limitations are:
“an infrastructure orchestration module configured to deploy and manage applications,”
“a version control system module configured to store and manage a configuration file for each of the computing infrastructures within a configuration repository,”
“a hierarchical configuration module configured to store and manage data of the configuration files in a hierarchical manner,”
“an assembling module operative to define dependencies between the components and libraries,”
“a configuration module configured to monitor the configuration repository of the version control system module,”
In Claim 16, such limitations are: “a metric storing module configured to collect metrics data from the monitored computing infrastructure components,”
In Claim 17, such limitations are: “a metric aggregator module configured to aggregate the metrics data collected from the metric storing module,”
In Claim 20, such limitations are:
“a Configuration Management Database (CMDB) module that is configured to manage and store inventory data relating to the unprovisioned server and switch,”
“a communication module configured to forward the configuration data,”
“a Network Operations Gateway (NOG) module to manage and control unprovisioned server and switch,”
“a deployment module configured to deploy the computing infrastructure in accordance with the CMDB module,”
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 18, and 19 also refer to the various modules recited in the claims on which they depend, and are thus similarly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the Specification as filed appears to indicate structures for the claim limitations:
Paragraph [000216]: “a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, upon being operated by the processor 300, causes the execution of software components comprising:
a version control system module (GIT) 510;
a hierarchical configuration module (Hieradata) 520;
an infrastructure orchestration module (Kubernetes) 530;
a configuration module (Flux) 240;
an assembling module (Bazel) 570;
a metric storing module (Prometheus) 540;
a metric aggregator module (Thanos) 550;”,
Paragraph [000276]: “the computer-readable medium comprises preferably instructions which, upon being operated by a processor 300, causes the execution of software components. Advantageously, the software components comprise at least:
a Configuration Management DataBase (CMDB) 210, also called Netbox;
a deployment module 220, also called OpenStack;
a communication module 230, also called Dicious;
a configuration module 240, also called Flux;
a Network Operations Gateway module 250, also called NOG;”
Based on the disclosure in the Specification, the modules recited in each of the claims are interpreted to be software components.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, line 3 recites, “…the configuration files in a hierarchical manner that includes the hierarchized variables,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis, as the term “hierarchized variables” has not been introduced prior in Claim 3 or Claim 1 upon which Claim 3 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the hierarchized variables,” to be, “hierarchized variables,” (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 4, lines 2-3 recite, “…lower priorities to the leaves of the tree structure,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent bases as the term “leaves [of the tree structure]” has not been introduced prior in Claim 4 or Claim 2 upon which Claim 4 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the leaves of the tree structure” to be, “leaves of the tree structure,” (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 6, line 3 recites, “…aggregate the metrics data collected from the metric storing module,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis as the terms “metrics data collected,” and “metric storing module,” has not been introduced in Claim 6 or Claim 1 upon which Claim 6 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the metrics data,” and “the metric storing module,” to be, “metrics data,” and “a metric storing module,” respectively (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 9, lines 2-3 recite, “…multiple levels of computing infrastructures, such that the primary computing infrastructure DC1,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis as the term “primary computing infrastructure DC1” has not been introduced prior in Claim 9 or Claim 1 upon which Claim 9 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the primary computing infrastructure DC1,” to be, “a primary computing infrastructure DC1,” (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 11, lines 9-10 recite, “…control the unprovisioned server and switch, wherein the communication module;” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether it should read “wherein the communication module:” (emphasis added), to indicate that the communication module performs the steps following the claim limitation, as the next step recites, “synchronizing a deployment module… via the communication module.” However, the last limitation recites, “booting, via the IPMI,” therefore also making it unclear whether the communication module or the IPMI is performing the last limitation. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “…wherein the communication module;” to be, “…wherein the communication module comprises:” (emphasis added) to indicate that the communication module performs the synchronizing process, but the IPMI performs the booting process.
Regarding Claim 14, line 4 recites, “…the configuration files in a hierarchical manner that includes the hierarchized variables,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis as the term “hierarchized variables” has not been introduced prior in Claim 14 or Claim 12 upon which Claim 14 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the hierarchized variables,” to be, “hierarchized variables,” (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 15, line 1-3 recites, “…wherein the order of priority of the tree structure comprises assigning the highest priority at a trunk of the tree structure and then, lower priorities to the leaves of the tree structure,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis as the “tree structure” has not been introduced prior in Claim 15, Claim 14 upon which Claim 15 depends, or Claim 12 upon which Claim 14 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the tree structure” to read, “a tree structure” (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 17, line 2 recites, “…aggregate the metrics data collected from the metric storing module,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis as the terms “metrics data collected,” and “metric storing module,” has not been introduced in Claim 17 or Claim 12 upon which Claim 17 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the metrics data collected,” and “the metric storing module,” to be, “metrics data collected,” and “a metric storing module,” respectively (emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 19, line 3 recites, “…including the secondary and tertiary computing infrastructures,” (emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis as the term “secondary and tertiary computing infrastructures,” have not been introduced in Claim 19, Claim 18 upon which Claim 19 depends, Claim 17 upon which Claim 18 depends, or Claim 12 upon which Claim 17 depends. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes “the secondary and tertiary computing infrastructures,” to be, “secondary and tertiary computing infrastructures,” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laurenz Advincula whose telephone number is (571)272-9211. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 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 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.
/L.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2175
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights