DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 05, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 05, 2026, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, as per the limitation:
“registering, by a centralized application manager comprising an fxManager, metadata for a plurality of instances of an application instances executing in distinct execution environments, wherein the metadata identifies the application instances and associated security policy constraints…”, Applicant cites [0054], [0105]-[0108], [0112]- [0123], [0130]-[0132], and [0181]-[0182] of the published application (US 2026/0059014). However, nowhere in the cited paragraphs is there a description of metadata, let alone “registering, by a centralized application manager comprising an fxManager, metadata for a plurality of instances of an application instances executing in distinct execution environments, wherein the metadata identifies the application instances and associated security policy constraints…”.
Next, as per the limitations:
“…receiving from a first application component, a request to communicate with a second application component of the distributed application;
determining, by the centralized application manager and a distributed resource service, whether communication between the first application component and the second application component is permitted based on the security policy constraints;
establishing, responsive to determining that the communication is permitted, communication between the first application component and the second application component over a virtual messaging fabric (fxVF)”, Applicant cites [0055]-[0056], [0075], [0078], [0144], [0156]-[0162], [0175], [0185]- [0198], and [0215] of the published application (US 2026/0059014). However, first, although the cited paragraphs describe a network manager defining policies using the centralized application manager/fxManager, see ¶0159, the fxManager itself does not appear to participate in any “determining” step to support the limitation as currently recited. Secondly, although ¶0159, further describes “The dRS 1602, 1603 allows or disallows access to platform resource or inter-app communication according to the policies defined by the network administrator using the fxManager”, ¶0159 appears to point to the virtual fabric (fxVF) as making the actual determination of whether communication is permitted or not, i.e., “The inter-app communication is enabled by the fxVF where the policy and security provisions are enforced”. As such, the specification does not support, in the particular manner and combination recited by Applicant’s claimed invention: “determining, by the centralized application manager and a distributed resource service, whether communication between the first application component and the second application component is permitted based on the security policy constraints…”.
Finally, as per the limitation:
“updating, by the centralized application manager, the metadata in response to deployment, de-provisioning, or scaling of at least one of the application instances across one or more network zones”, Applicant cites [0054], [0105]-[0108], [0112]- [0113], [0127], [0131]-[0132], and [0162] of the published application (US 2026/0059014).
However, similar to above, nowhere in the cited paragraphs is there a description of metadata, let alone “updating, by the centralized application manager, the metadata in response to deployment, de-provisioning, or scaling of at least one of the application instances across one or more network zones”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, as per claims 1, 10, and 19 the following claimed computer functions:
“…registering, by a centralized application manager comprising an fxManager, metadata for a plurality of application instances executing in distinct execution environments, wherein the metadata identifies the application instances and associated security policy constraints;
…
determining, by the centralized application manager and a distributed resource service, whether communication between the first application component and the second application component is permitted based on the security policy constraints;
…
updating, by the centralized application manager, the metadata in response to deployment, de-provisioning, or scaling of at least one of the application instances across one or more network zones”, were not described in the specification in such a way (e.g., including steps/procedure for performing the claimed computer function) as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted in the Remarks section above, the specification does not describe metadata, let alone “registering, by a centralized application manager comprising an fxManager, metadata for a plurality of instances of an application instances executing in distinct execution environments, wherein the metadata identifies the application instances and associated security policy constraints”, and/or “updating, by the centralized application manager, the metadata in response to deployment, de-provisioning, or scaling of at least one of the application instances across one or more network zones”. Moreover, the specification does not describe in sufficient detail the centralized application manager and a distributed resource service: “determining … whether communication between the first application component and the second application component is permitted based on the security policy constraints”, as specifically claimed.
Claims 3-9, 12-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) based on their dependency to one of the above-mentioned claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-22, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwangg can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
