DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20 are pending. Claims 4, 8, 9 and 18 are canceled. Claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 are amended.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on 11/18/2025.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 were amended. Claims 4, 8, 9 and 18 were canceled. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20 are being considered on the merits.
The rejection of claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112 has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claim filed on 11/18/2025.
The previous rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For further details, please see Response to Arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103 Rejection Remarks below.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered with the following result(s).
The examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Response to 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 11/18/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Claim Interpretation and 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The examiner agreed with all of the amends made to the updated of the claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20. The 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection Remarks
Applicant's arguments in the applicant’s remarks and amendments of claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20, found on pages 7 – 9 and filed on 11/18/2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that “Applicant contends that the applied references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest eyewear in which a first self-contained virtual machine (SCVM) is on a first System of a Chip (SoC), a second SCVM is on a second SoC, where the second SCVM (on the second SoC) is configured to communicate with the first SCVM (on the first SoC) via an inter-process communication IPC protocol supported by the supervisor OS.”; and “The applied references do not disclose communication between a SCVM on a SoC and another SCVM on another SoC; let alone via an inter-process communication IPC protocol as in claim 1.”
The examiner fully considered, and respectfully disagreed, and would like to point out that the limitation “a first self-contained virtual machine (SCVM) is on a first System of a Chip (SoC), a second SCVM is on a second SoC” is taught by CORMACK (US 20210173705 A1) at FIG. 2, paragraph [0044] and [0045], as explained in the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection below. The limitation “where the second SCVM (on the second SoC) is configured to communicate with the first SCVM (on the first SoC) via an inter-process communication IPC protocol supported by the supervisor OS” is taught by GILL (US 20160359955 A1) at [0084]: “Communications between the control virtual machine 130.sub.1 and the container service machine 150 can occur over the shown link 114. In many cases, communication into and out of the container service machine 150 can be performed by the shown container agent 160. The link can be implemented using any known communication techniques or modes. Strictly as an example, such a link can rely on inter-process communications (IPC), data message passing through shared memory, IP protocols, tunnels, etc.”) or CORMACK (US 20210173705 A1) at [0041]: “Communications between orchestration agents 144a and 144b and OS 120a and 120b, and orchestration scheduler 142 may be exchanged in any one of a number of known inter-process communication techniques.”)
Thus, based on all of the above explanation, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GILL et al. US Pub. No. US 20160359955 A1 (hereafter GILL) in further view of Canberk et al. US Pat. No. US 11175516 B1 (hereafter Canberk), Singh et al. US Pat. No. US 10838756 B2 (hereafter Singh), and CORMACK et al. US Pub. No. US 20210173705 A1 (hereafter CORMACK)
Regarding claim 1, GILL teaches the invention substantially as claimed: An electronic device comprising: at least one processing system; (FIG. 1A and [0054]: “In FIG. 1A, a virtual machine architecture 100 is illustrated comprising hardware 101.sub.1 which includes the physical hardware of a computer such as a processor and memory. An operating system 102.sub.1 may be installed on the hardware 101.sub.1”) The citation discloses a virtual machine architecture 100/processing system that comprise processor, memory, and an OS. However, GILL fails to disclose the electronic device could be an eyewear device. The eyewear device will be taught by Canberk, as discuss below.
a container manager........., the container manager running a supervisor operating system (OS); ([0054]: “Further, a hypervisor 104.sub.1 may be installed on the operating system to instantiate and manage one or more virtual machines (e.g., virtual machine 106.sub.1 and virtual machine 106.sub.2). Though FIG. 1A shows the hypervisor 104.sub.1 installed on the operating system 102.sub.1, in some embodiments a hypervisor 104.sub.1 may be installed and function directly from the hardware level (e.g., running on “bare metal”).”) The citation discloses a hypervisor 104.sub1/container manager that responsible for managing VMs. Since the Hypervisor is managing the VMs, it would imply that the Hypervisor is running a software/supervisor OS, to manage the VMs.
a first self-contained virtual machine (SCVM) ........., the first SCVM having a first OS, ([0055]: “The virtual machine 106.sub.1 and virtual machine 106.sub.2 may each have operating systems installed within them (not depicted), such as Microsoft Windows or Linux.”)
the first SCVM managed by the container manager and configured to provide a first service; (FIG. 1A and [0055]: “The virtual machines may be used to run one or more applications, such as application 108.sub.1 and application 108.sub.2.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 1A the VM 106.sub1 is managed by the hypervisor 104, and the VM 106.sub1 runs app. 108.sub1/first service
a second SCVM ........, the second SCVM having a second OS, ([0055]: “The virtual machine 106.sub.1 and virtual machine 106.sub.2 may each have operating systems installed within them (not depicted), such as Microsoft Windows or Linux.”)
the second SCVM managed by the container manager and configured to provide a second service (FIG. 1A and [0055]: “The virtual machines may be used to run one or more applications, such as application 108.sub.1 and application 108.sub.2.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 1A the VM 106.sub2 is managed by the hypervisor 104, and the VM 106.sub2 runs app. 108.sub2/second service
and to communicate with the first SCVM via an inter-process communication (IPC) protocol supported by the supervisor OS, the first OS, and the second OS. ([0084]: “Communications between the control virtual machine 130.sub.1 and the container service machine 150 can occur over the shown link 114. In many cases, communication into and out of the container service machine 150 can be performed by the shown container agent 160. The link can be implemented using any known communication techniques or modes. Strictly as an example, such a link can rely on inter-process communications (IPC), data message passing through shared memory, IP protocols, tunnels, etc.”) The citation discloses the communications could rely on IPC.
the first SCVM is a first container .......... the second SCVM is a second container ........., and the container manager manages the first and second containers (FIG. 1B and [0057]: “FIG. 1B illustrates an alternative approach for virtualized computing environments using containers. There, container architecture 110 comprises a hardware 101.sub.2 comprising physical hardware, such as one or more processors (e.g., processor cores) and memory. An operating system 102.sub.2 is installed on the hardware 101.sub.2. The operating system 102.sub.2 is configured to support containers using container support frameworks such as Linux containers (e.g., LXC) and Docker (e.g., dockerized containers). Docker is company that provides products (e.g., Docker) for deployment of code (e.g., services, applications) within a container execution environment.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 1B the container 116.sub.1/first SCVM and 116.sub.2/second SCVM, and at [0057] disclose the containers using container frameworks as Docker/container manager.
GILL teaches an electronic device, fails to teaches the electronic device is an Eyewear having a plurality of modes of operation, the eyewear comprising: a frame configured to be worn on a head of user; at least one processing system supported by the frame, the at least one processing system comprising a first system on a chip (SoC) and a second SoC; container manager configured to run on each of the first SoC and the second SoC; ...... the first SCVM having two or more first SCVM resource budgets; and ...... the second SCVM having two or more second SCVM resource budgets; a first self-contained virtual machine (SCVM) on the first SoC; ......... a second SCVM on the second SoC; wherein the first SCVM ........ selects one of the two or more first SCVM resource budgets responsive to a current mode of operation of the system and the second SCVM ........ selects one of the two or more second SCVM resource budgets responsive to the current mode of operation of the system.
However, Canberk teaches Eyewear having a plurality of modes of operation. (e.g. FIG. 1A – 1C, FIG. 3A and 57 – Col 12, lines 2 – 13: “a thermostat application 348 to a control a thermostat when the recognized object is a thermostat; and a lighting application 349 to control a light when then the recognized object is a light. Also shown are a payment application 350 to render payment when the recognized object is a bill, a check, or a receipt; and a fitness application 351 when the recognized is exercise equipment, such as a bicycle or running shoes. In one example, the memory 334 includes a shopping application or a web browser application to purchase a recognized object or provide pricing information of the recognized object.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 1A – 1C an eyewear device and the hardware configuration, and at FIG. 3A discloses an example of object recognition system includes a wearable device, which is the eyewear device, comprises a memory component 334 that stores different application/mode that the eyewear device can operate.
a frame configured to be worn on a head of user; at least one processing system supported by the frame (e.g. FIG. 1A – 1C, FIG. 3A, Col 8, lines 13 – 20: “As shown in FIGS. 1A-C, the eyewear device 100 is in a form for wearing by a user, which are eyeglasses in the example of FIGS. 1A-C. The eyewear device 100 can take other forms and may incorporate other types of frameworks, for example, a headgear, a headset, or a helmet. In the eyeglasses example, eyewear device 100 includes a frame 105 including a left rim 107A connected to a right rim 107B via a bridge 106 adapted for a nose of the user.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 1A – 1C an eyewear device and the hardware configuration, and at FIG. 3A discloses an example of object recognition system/processing system, includes a wearable device, which is the eyewear device.
the at least one processing system comprising a first system on a chip (SoC) and a second SoC; (e.g. FIG. 3C and 73 – Col 16, lines 15 – 34: “As shown in FIG. 3C, the high-speed circuitry 330 of the eyewear device 100 includes at least two systems on a chip (SOCs) 331A-B. The first SOC 331A is a dedicated graphics processing unit (GPU) or a vision processing unit (VPU), which includes a first processor 343A; a first memory 334A (e.g., firmware); and firmware programming in the first memory 334A........ The second SOC 331B of the high-speed circuitry 330 is a main SOC which includes a second processor 343B, a second memory 334B, and application layer of object recognition programming 344B in the second memory 334B.”) The citation discloses the circuitry of the eyewear device comprises at least 2 SoC, SoC 331A/first SoC, and SoC 331B/second SoC.
Thus, by combining the teaching of GILL about the electronic device, with the teaching of Canberka about the eyewear device comprise processor, memory, etc., one with the ordinary skills in the art would be able to come up with the feature components of the eyewear of the claim invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the eyewear having a plurality of modes of operation; a frame configured to be worn on a head of user; at least one processing system supported by the frame, the at least one processing system comprising a first system on a chip (SoC) and a second SoC, as taught in Canberk’s invention into GILL’s invention because by implementing the multiple VMs architecture into the computing system of the eyewear device, it allows different services, which running in isolation environment, can cooperate seamlessly together, and providing user with secure and reliable access to different functions of the eyewear. In addition, VM architecture would enable better resources management, as each VM has their own number of resources assigned when initiating, thus ensuring smooth performance without interrupting the user’s experience, and preventing the system from shutting down due to resource issues.
However, Singh teaches the first SCVM having two or more first SCVM resource budgets; (e.g. FIG. 1, FIG. 5, and 19 – Col 2, lines 22 – 24: “The software container instances may be virtual machine instances configured to support containerization” and 33 – Col 5, lines 51 – 57: “The containers 118 may be launched to have only specified resources from resources allocated to the container instance 114; that is, a container may be launched to have a certain amount of memory and to not utilize more than a specified amount of processing power. The resource allocation for the containers 118 may be specified in the task definition file 104.” and e.g. 86 – Col 19, lines 55 – 67: “The amount of resources to be allocated to the containers 504A-04C may be specified within the task definition. A scheduler may determine the container instance 502 in which to launch the containers 504A-04C, based on, as has been described in the present specification, a placement scheme and/or available resources within a set of container instances of which the container instance 502 is a member. Thereupon, the scheduler may notify the container instance 502 or the container agent 512, to allocate the amount of resources specified by the task definition to the containers 504A-04C, and the container agent 512 may allocate the resources to the containers 504A-04C as directed by the scheduler.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 5 that the instance 502/SCVM has different containers, and each container has different amount of resource/resource budget that allocated to the container base on the task. At FIG. 1 discloses the system comprises multiple instances, so the first SCVM would be within these instances.
and ...... the second SCVM having two or more second SCVM resource budgets; (e.g. FIG. 1, FIG. 5, and 19 – Col 2, lines 22 – 24: “The software container instances may be virtual machine instances configured to support containerization” and 33 – Col 5, lines 51 – 57: “The containers 118 may be launched to have only specified resources from resources allocated to the container instance 114; that is, a container may be launched to have a certain amount of memory and to not utilize more than a specified amount of processing power. The resource allocation for the containers 118 may be specified in the task definition file 104.” and e.g. 86 – Col 19, lines 55 – 67: “The amount of resources to be allocated to the containers 504A-04C may be specified within the task definition. A scheduler may determine the container instance 502 in which to launch the containers 504A-04C, based on, as has been described in the present specification, a placement scheme and/or available resources within a set of container instances of which the container instance 502 is a member. Thereupon, the scheduler may notify the container instance 502 or the container agent 512, to allocate the amount of resources specified by the task definition to the containers 504A-04C, and the container agent 512 may allocate the resources to the containers 504A-04C as directed by the scheduler.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 5 that the instance 502/SCVM has different containers, and each container has different amount of resource/resource budget that allocated to the container base on the task. At FIG. 1 discloses the system comprises multiple instances, so the second SCVM would be within these instances.
wherein the first SCVM ........ selects one of the two or more first SCVM resource budgets responsive to a current mode of operation of the system and the second SCVM ........ selects one of the two or more second SCVM resource budgets responsive to the current mode of operation of the system. (e.g. FIG. 1, FIG. 5, and 81 – Col 18, lines 26 – 31: “Thereafter, if a request to launch a container is received through the front-end service 404 from the customer or from a scheduler, a scheduler may refer to the cluster manager 406 to select the container instance 418 and tell the container agent 422 of the container instance 418 to launch the container.” and 89 – Col 20, lines 44 – 48: “The task definition may specify information, such as a description of the tasks/containers, locations of where to find images for the tasks/containers, amounts of resources allocated to the tasks/containers, shared resources, relationships between other containers, and other information.” and 124 – Col 29, lines 42 – 53: “This may be performed for each container defined in a task definition. The task definition may also indicate linkages between containers; for example, a container configured to serve as a web service may be linked to a container configured to serve as a database, and the two containers may be configured to communicate with each other when they are launched. Likewise, in some implementations, containers may share specified resources of other services of the computing resource service provider. For example, the task definition file may specify that two containers share a particular block-level data storage volume.”) The citation discloses at Col 18, lines 26 – 31 discloses the selection of containers base on the task requirement. At Col 20, lines 44 – 48 the task definition comprises the requirements to perform the task. At Col 29, lines 42 – 53 the concept of requiring two containers for performing a task. Singh does not indicate the system is an eyewear. The eyewear is taught by Canberk, as discuss above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the first SCVM having two or more first SCVM resource budgets; and ...... the second SCVM having two or more second SCVM resource budgets; wherein the first SCVM selects one of the two or more first SCVM resource budgets responsive to a current mode of operation of the eyewear and the second SCVM selects one of the two or more second SCVM resource budgets responsive to the current mode of operation of the eyewear, as taught in Singh’s invention into GILL and Canberk’s invention because by assigning multiple amount or budget of resources to the corresponding VMs, it can prevent one service from consuming all available computing resources of the entire system, and ensuring each service operates within its allocated resources limits, and thereby improving stability and performance, preventing the whole system from shutting down due to overloading, and also enhances efficiency of managing system’s resources.
However, CORMACK teach container manager configured to run on each of the first SoC and the second SoC (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0044]: “Container framework 122* may be any one of a number of container management frameworks known in the art.” and [0045]: “and container frameworks 122a and 122b, may be any one of these elements known or like elements in the art, with container framework 122* arranged to manage containers with applications packaged with all their execution dependencies.”) The citation discloses the SoC 102a and SoC 102b, each comprises a container framework/container manager, that manages containers.
a first self-contained virtual machine (SCVM) on the first SoC, (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0045]: “For examples, SoC 102* may be an Atom platforms from Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif. Similarly, OS 120a and 120b, and container frameworks 122a and 122b, may be any one of these elements known or like elements in the art, with container framework 122* arranged to manage containers with applications packaged with all their execution dependencies.”) The citation discloses the SoC 102a comprises the container framework 122a, which manages containers. Therefore, it would imply that the first container is running on the SoC102a, and is managed by the container framework 122a.
a second SCVM on the second SoC, (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0045]: “For examples, SoC 102* may be an Atom platforms from Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif. Similarly, OS 120a and 120b, and container frameworks 122a and 122b, may be any one of these elements known or like elements in the art, with container framework 122* arranged to manage containers with applications packaged with all their execution dependencies.”) The citation discloses the SoC 102b comprises the container framework 122b, which manages containers. Therefore, it would imply that the second container is running on the SoC 102b, and is managed by the container framework 122b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the container manager configured to run on each of the first SoC and the second SoC; a first self-contained virtual machine (SCVM) on the first SoC; a second SCVM on the second SoC, as taught in CORMACK’s invention into GILL’s invention because by running different SCVMs across separate SoCs, the system can optimize workloads distribution and ensure computational intensive tasks are handle independently, and prevent failures or performance degradation of the whole system since one SoCs are not directly impact the execution of services on the other, and leading to better response and reduce latency.
Regarding claim 2, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 1, and CORMACK further teaches: wherein the first and second SCVMs are each spawned on either the first SoC or the second SoC. (FIG. 2 and [0024]: “Each of SoC1/SoC2 102a/102b includes central processing unit (CPU) 104a/104b, graphics processing unit (GPU) 106a/106b, and accelerators 108a/108b (such as computer vision/deep learning (CV/DL) accelerators. Software 120*-124* and 140 include operating systems (OS) 120a and 120b respectively hosted by SoC1 102a and SoC 102b. Each OS 120a/120b hosts execution of a container framework 122a/122b and applications 124a-124d.”) The citation discloses at FIG.2 and [0024] that the system has two SoC 102a and 102b, and each runs a container framework 112a/112b. However, CORMACK does not indicate that the container framework 112a/112b could be virtual machine framework. GILL disclose at FIG. 1A the VM architecture. Therefore, by combining the teaching of GILL for the VM architecture, with the teaching of CORMACK about the computing system has 2 SoCs, one with the ordinary skills in the art would be able to come up with the claim invention.
Regarding claim 3, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 1, GILL further teaches wherein the container manager is a hypervisor. ([0054]: “Further, a hypervisor 104.sub.1 may be installed on the operating system to instantiate and manage one or more virtual machines”)
Regarding claim 5, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 1, and GILL further teaches: further comprising: computing resources shared by the first SCVM and the second SCVM; wherein the computing resources are managed through the IPC protocol. (FIG 1A and FIG. 1B and [0054]: “Specifically FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B illustrate approaches for implementing virtualized computing machines using virtual machines (FIG. 1A) and containers (FIG. 1B). In FIG. 1A, a virtual machine architecture 100 is illustrated comprising hardware 101.sub.1 which includes the physical hardware of a computer such as a processor and memory.” and [0084] Communications between the control virtual machine 130.sub.1 and the container service machine 150 can occur over the shown link 114…... Strictly as an example, such a link can rely on inter-process communications (IPC)” and [0009]: “virtualization allows multiple virtualized computers (e.g., VMs, containers) to share the underlying physical resources so that during periods of inactivity by one virtualized computer, another virtualized computer can take advantage of the resource availability to process workloads.”) The citation discloses at FIG 1A and FIG. 1B and [0054] the VMs or containers share the hardware 101 (memory and processor). At [0084] disclose the communication method comprises IPC. At [0009] discloses that within the virtualization, the VMs can share the underlying physical resources/ computing resources shared by the first SCVM and the second SCVM
Regarding claim 6, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 1, and GILL further teaches: wherein the first SCVM further includes a third container and is further configured to provide a third service, wherein the first service runs in the first container and the third service runs in the second container. (FIG. 1B and [0058]: “As illustrated, the operating system can host and support or manage one or more containers, such as container 116.sub.1 and container 116.sub.2. The containers may implement one or more applications as containerized applications, such as application 108.sub.3 and application 108.sub.4.” and FIG. 2 and [0046]: “The one or more instances of a container service machine 150 (e.g., instances shown as user container virtual machine 250.sub.11, user container virtual machine 250.sub.12, . . . , user container virtual machine 250.sub.1N) may be implemented as a virtual machine with an operating system 102.sub.1 that supports containers (e.g., Linux). As such, one or more user containers (e.g., user container 252.sub.11, user container 252.sub.12, user container 252.sub.13, user container 252.sub.14) may run from within its respective user container virtual machine. Each of the user containers may comprise one or more images that are layered to appear as a single file system for that container. For example, a base layer may correspond to a Linux Ubuntu image, with an application execution layer on top. The application execution layer corresponding to a read/write execution environment for applications, such as MySQL or websites, is explained further below.”) The citation at FIG. 2 and [0046] discloses the user container VM 250 that support container 252.sub.11. and 252.sub.12/first and third container. At FIG. 1B and [0058] disclose that the container can run the application 108.sub.3/first service and application 108.sub.4/third service, so it would imply that each user container 252 would run an application/a service.
Regarding claim 7, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 6, and GILL further teaches wherein the first SCVM comprises a kernel shared by the first container and the third container of the first SCVM share. ([0008]: “Recently, container-based virtualization technologies have grown in popularity. In comparison to virtual machines, which mimic independent physical machines by creating a virtual machine that runs on top of a host's operating system, containers virtualize the applications that can run in user-space directly on an operating system's kernel.” and FIG. 2 and [0046]: “The one or more instances of a container service machine 150 (e.g., instances shown as user container virtual machine 250.sub.11, user container virtual machine 250.sub.12, . . . , user container virtual machine 250.sub.1N) may be implemented as a virtual machine with an operating system 102.sub.1 that supports containers (e.g., Linux). As such, one or more user containers (e.g., user container 252.sub.11, user container 252.sub.12, user container 252.sub.13, user container 252.sub.14) may run from within its respective user container virtual machine.”) The citations disclose the containers can run directly on an OS’s kernel. FIG. 2 and [0046] discloses the user container VM 250 that support container 252.sub.11. and 252.sub.12/first and third container, that sharing the OS 102.sub.1, which includes the OS’s kernel.
Regarding claim 10, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 1, and GILL further teaches wherein the container manager is configured to perform at least one of the following: start and stop the first SCVM and the second SCVM; ([0057]: "The operating system 102.sub.2 is configured to support containers using container support frameworks such as Linux containers (e.g., LXC) and Docker (e.g., dockerized containers). and [0064]: “Strictly as examples, the foregoing components operate in coordination so as to facilitate container configuration and management operations such as “create container”, “start” a container, “stop” a container, and “pause” a container.”) the citation discloses the Docker/system isolation manager can start and stop containers.
delegate peripheral access to the first SCVM and the second SCVM; arbitrate access to shared resources;
or enforce bandwidth limits for access to the shared resources. ([0097]: “Operations available during creation of an instance of a container service machine include specification of sizing parameters, including quotas or limits pertaining to node or cluster resources (e.g., CPU usage limits, memory usage limits, disk size limits, etc.).”) The citation discloses the limit on the resources of the computing system.
Regarding claim 11, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 1, and Canberk further teaches wherein the first system on a chip (SoC) is positioned in a first portion of the frame and a second system on a chip (SoC) is positioned in a second portion of the frame. (e.g. FIG. 1B, 1C, and Col 9, lines 35 – 43: “As further shown in FIGS. 1B-C, eyewear device 100 includes a left chunk 110A adjacent the left lateral side 170A of the frame 105 and a right chunk 110B adjacent the right lateral side 170B of the frame 105. The chunks 110A-B may be integrated into the frame 105 on the respective lateral sides 170A-B (as illustrated) or implemented as separate components attached to the frame 105 on the respective sides 170A-B. Alternatively, the chunks 110A-B may be integrated into temples 125A-B attached to the frame 105.”)
Regarding claim 12, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the eyewear of claim 11, and Canberk further teaches wherein the first portion is adjacent a first side of the frame and the second portion of the frame is adjacent a second side of the frame. (FIG. 1B, 1C, and Col 9, lines 35 – 43: “As further shown in FIGS. 1B-C, eyewear device 100 includes a left chunk 110A adjacent the left lateral side 170A of the frame 105 and a right chunk 110B adjacent the right lateral side 170B of the frame 105. The chunks 110A-B may be integrated into the frame 105 on the respective lateral sides 170A-B (as illustrated) or implemented as separate components attached to the frame 105 on the respective sides 170A-B. Alternatively, the chunks 110A-B may be integrated into temples 125A-B attached to the frame 105.”)
Regarding claim 13, the claim is method claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, GILL, in view of Canberk, CORMACK, and Singh, discloses the method of claim 13, and GILL further teaches wherein the spawning steps comprise: spawning the first SCVM on a first SoC; and spawning the second SCVM on the first SoC. (FIG. 1A and [0054]: “In FIG. 1A, a virtual machine architecture 100 is illustrated comprising hardware 101.sub.1 which includes the physical hardware of a computer such as a processor and memory. An operating system 102.sub.1 may be installed on the hardware 101.sub.1. Further, a hypervisor 104.sub.1 may be installed on the operating system to instantiate and manage one or more virtual machines (e.g., virtual machine 106.sub.1 and virtual machine 106.sub.2).”) The citation discloses the VM 106.sub.1 and VM 106.sub.2 is running on the hardware 101.sub.1 that includes a processor/first SoC.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is method claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is method claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is method claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is method claim that having similar limitations cited in claims 3 and 10. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 3 and 10.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 13. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10334154 B2: A portable electronic device with image capturing capabilities automatically or semi-automatically adjusts one or more image capturing parameters based on an input attribute of user engagement with a single-action haptic input mechanism.
US 20110161988 A1: A method, system, and article to support sharing resources in a computer system. An operating system within the computer system, the operating system having a kernel level and a user level, with the kernel level configured with a first container and a second container. The first container is assigned to a first namespace and the second container is assigned to a second namespace. Both the first and second namespaces are isolated from each other and at the same time in communication with at least one shared object.
US 20100110368 A1: a multimedia eyeglass device includes an eyeglass frame having a side arm and an optic frame; an output device for delivering an output to the wearer; an input device for obtaining an input; and a processor comprising a set of programming instructions for controlling the input device and the output device.
US 20220283836 A1: a defined configuration of a VM includes a configured resource demand, corresponding in certain aspects to a “desired state,” which indicates for one or more resource types, an amount of each resource type and a number of resources of each resource type that should be allocated to the VM; based on a triggering event for a VM, may attempt to select and recommend placement of a VM on a host in a manner where the configured resource demand/desired state of the VM is achieved.
US 20160252728 A1: The eyewear may include a visor configured to display a virtual image in a field of vision of the wearer, a frame for supporting the visor, and electronics for operating the eyewear. The electronics may be integrally embedded within one or more components of the frame. The electronics, in various embodiments, may be arranged on one or more printed circuit boards. The one or more frame components, in some embodiments, may include one or more shells molded over the electronics such that they are integrally embedded there within. The frame, in various embodiments, may be a spectacles frame. The electronics, in various embodiments, may be integrally embedded within a first temple and a second temple of the spectacles frame.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN MINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30am - 5:00PM ET.
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, Chat Do can be reached on 571-272-3721. 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
/TUAN M NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights