DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
3. Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 9-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and Claims 15-20 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
4. Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The limitations of “initializing two atomic variables that can be read and modified by a thread executing within the cloned VM, the variables comprising: a first variable associated with an internal identifier of the cloned VM relative to an internal identifier of the parent VM; and a second variable associated with an external identifier of the cloned VM; in an instance where a first thread detects a change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM: setting the first variable to indicate that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier; and registering the cloned VM with the backend system; and in an instance where a first thread detects no change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM: setting the first variable to indicate that registration was not triggered based on the internal identifier; checking the second variable to determine whether the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed; and if the second variable indicates that the external identifier has changed, registering the cloned VM with the backend system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that there re two atomic variables that can be read and modified. One can also observe and judge that the first variable is associated with an internal identifier of the cloned VM relative to an internal identifier of the parent VM, and the second variable is associated with an external identifier of the cloned VM. Furthermore, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that when the first thread detects a change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM, the first variable is set to indicate that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier. Moreover, a person can also observe that when there is no change of the internal identifier to set the first variable to indicate that registration was not triggered based on the internal identifier. Subsequently, a person can continue to observe checking the second variable to determine whether the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed; and if the second variable indicates that the external identifier has changed, registering the cloned VM with the backend system. These limitations are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
5. Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “A method for registering a cloned virtual machine ("VM"), comprising:”; “instantiating the cloned VM from a parent VM;”; and “registering the cloned VM with the backend system”, which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. “Instantiating a cloned VM from a parent VM” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the VM technology. Additionally, the use of threads mentioned throughout the claim language merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
6. Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
7. With regard to claims 2, 9, and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the second variable is set by a second thread executing within the cloned VM, based on the second thread determining that the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the second variable is set by a second thread executing within the cloned VM, based on the second thread determining that the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed. Additionally, the use of threads mentioned throughout the claim language merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, claims 2, 9, and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 9, and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 2, 9, and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
8. With regard to claims 3, 10, and 17, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the second thread checks the first variable before setting the second variable”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the first variable is checked by a first thread before setting the second variable. Additionally, the use of threads mentioned throughout the claim language merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, claims 3, 10, and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 10, and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 3, 10, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
9,. With regard to claims 4, 11, and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein in an instance where the first variable indicates that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier, setting the second variable to indicate that the external identifier has not been changed”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that when the first variable indicates that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier, setting the second variable to indicate that the external identifier has not been changed. Further, claims 4, 11, and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 11, and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 4, 11, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
10. With regard to claims 5, 12, and 19, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein checking the first variable comprises asserting a signal on a memory bus without the first or second threads being locked.” This language merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, claims 5, 12, and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5, 12, and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 5, 12, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
11. With regard to claims 6, 13, and 20, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the internal identifier is at least one of a basic input/output system ("BIOS") universally unique identifier ("UUID") and a media access control ("MAC") address”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the internal identifier is at least one of a basic input/output system ("BIOS") universally unique identifier ("UUID") and a media access control ("MAC") address. Additionally, this language merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, claims 6, 13, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 13, and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 6, 13, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
12. With regard to claims 7 and 14 they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the external identity is a VM universally unique identifier ("UUID")”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the external identity is a VM universally unique identifier ("UUID"). Additionally, this language merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, claims 7 and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 7 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13. Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
14. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Barfonchovski et al. US 20180159844 A1, in view of Cao US 20150339144 A1, and in further view of Wei et al. US 20220417344 A1.
15. With regard to claim 1, Barfonchovski teaches:
A method for registering a cloned virtual machine ("VM"), comprising:
instantiating the cloned VM from a parent VM ([0054] A clone is a copy of an existing virtual machine (e.g., component server 330). The existing virtual machine is called the parent of the clone.);
initializing two atomic variables that can be read and modified by a thread executing within the cloned VM ([0054] Changes made to a clone do not affect the parent virtual machine. Changes made to the parent virtual machine do not appear in a clone. A clone's media access control (MAC) address and identifier are different from those of the parent virtual machine; [0064] When the machine 330 is cloned, an identifier (e.g., its SMBIOS UUID, GUID, etc.) is changed from the identifier of the server 330 to generate a new identifier for the cloned server 334, 336 (e.g., a new UUID, GUID, etc.); Examiner’s Note: The clone has its own MAC address and identifier (e.g., its SMBIOS UUID, GUID, etc.).), the variables comprising:
a first variable associated with an internal identifier of the cloned VM relative to an internal identifier of the parent VM ([0054] Changes made to a clone do not affect the parent virtual machine. Changes made to the parent virtual machine do not appear in a clone. A clone's media access control (MAC) address and identifier are different from those of the parent virtual machine; Examiner’s Note: The MAC is the first variable that is relative to the identifier of the parent VM.); and
a second variable associated with an external identifier of the cloned VM ([0064] When the machine 330 is cloned, an identifier (e.g., its SMBIOS UUID, GUID, etc.) is changed from the identifier of the server 330 to generate a new identifier for the cloned server 334, 336 (e.g., a new UUID, GUID, etc.); Examiner’s Note: The second variable is an identifier (e.g., its SMBIOS UUID, GUID, etc.) associated with the cloned VM.);
Barfonchovski fails to explicitly teach in an instance where a first thread detects a change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM: setting the first variable to indicate that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier; and registering the cloned VM with the backend system; and in an instance where a first thread detects no change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM: setting the first variable to indicate that registration was not triggered based on the internal identifier; checking the second variable to determine whether the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed; and if the second variable indicates that the external identifier has changed, registering the cloned VM with the backend system.
However, in analogous art, Cao teaches:
in an instance where a first thread detects a change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM ([0021] Suppose operation 250 is an operation to clone VM 210. VM 220, which is a copy of VM 210, is then generated. During the cloning process, a new MAC address and a new virtual NIC, such as virtual MAC address 242 and virtual NIC 241, respectively, are also generated; [0022] In one embodiment, VM action monitor 162 may be installed prior to the initiation of operation 250 and may maintain stored copies of virtual MAC address 232 and the device identifier associated with virtual NIC 231 (e.g., network device name Eth0). Thus, after the cloning operation begins, VM action monitor 162 may detect the occurrence of the cloning operation, from the context of VM 220, by detecting a change in virtual NICs; Examiner’s Note: The VM action monitor detects a change in the virtual NIC, which is associated with a virtual MAC address.):
setting the first variable to indicate that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier ([0031] Since OS 221 of VM 220 detects the absence of virtual NIC 231 with virtual MAC address 232 and the presence of a new virtual NIC with a different MAC address (e.g., virtual NIC 241 with virtual MAC address 242), OS 221 generates a new device identifier (e.g., Eth1) for virtual NIC 241; [0032] At block 420, VM action monitor 162 may cause a change of this new device identifier to match the device identifier associated with virtual NIC 231 (e.g., Eth0) without any manual intervention; Examiner’s Note: The VM action monitor changes the new identifier associated with the NIC with a MAC address due to the presence of a new virtual NIC.); and
registering the cloned VM with the backend system ([0022] Thus, after the cloning operation begins, VM action monitor 162 may detect the occurrence of the cloning operation, from the context of VM 220, by detecting a change in virtual NICs. For example, virtual NIC 231 with virtual MAC address 232 is not present in VM 220. Instead, virtual NIC 241 with virtual MAC address 242 is. Since VM action monitor 162 maintains a stored copy of the device identifier associated with virtual NIC 231, it can change the device identifier associated with virtual NIC 241 with this stored copy. In other words, VM action monitor 162 can change the device identifier associated with virtual NIC 241, Eth1, to the stored copy, Eth0; Examiner’s Note: changes the device identifier associated with the virtual NIC, which is analogous with registering the cloned VM.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barfonchovski with the teaching of Cao where in an instance where a first thread detects a change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM; setting the first variable to indicate that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier; registering the cloned VM with the backend system. This ensures that the newly cloned VM is correctly identified, allowing proper storage and use, as discussed in Cao ([0022]).
Both Barfonchovski and Cao fail to teach in an instance where a first thread detects no change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM: setting the first variable to indicate that registration was not triggered based on the internal identifier; checking the second variable to determine whether the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed; and if the second variable indicates that the external identifier has changed, registering the cloned VM with the backend system.
However, in analogous art, Wei teaches:
in an instance where a first thread detects no change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM ([0051] Since a MAC address of the cloned machine is the same but an IP address is different, it may be determined whether the proxy end is a cloned machine by determining a heartbeat IP of heartbeat information; Examiner’s Note: MAC address of the VM is unchanged.):
setting the first variable to indicate that registration was not triggered based on the internal identifier ([0051] If the first hash counter is 0, it is indicated that the proxy end is not a cloned machine and registration is allowed; Examiner’s Note: The MAC address is the same and the first hash counter (first variable) is 0. This indicates that it is not a cloned machine and registration is allowed.);
checking the second variable to determine whether the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed (Claim 3, or in response to the second UUID and the third UUID being different, notifying the proxy end of a need to re-register.); and
if the second variable indicates that the external identifier has changed, registering the cloned VM with the backend system (Claim 3, or in response to the second UUID and the third UUID being different, notifying the proxy end of a need to re-register; [0071] a registration allowing module 400, configured to allow, when the determination result of the second determination module is Yes, the proxy end to register; Examiner’s Note: If the VM is allowed to register, meaning its first hash value is 0, then the proxy will notify the need to re-register the VM due to the second and third UUID being different.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barfonchovski and Cao with the teachings of Wei where and in an instance where a first thread detects no change of the internal identifier of the cloned VM: setting the first variable to indicate that registration was not triggered based on the internal identifier; checking the second variable to determine whether the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed; and if the second variable indicates that the external identifier has changed, registering the cloned VM with the backend system. This allows for the proper identification of a clone VM, and determining that registration is allowed. By registering the newly cloned VM, the system is correctly updated to reflect the new changes, as discussed in Wei ([0051]; [0056]).
16. With regard to claim 2, Barfonchovski, Cao, and Wei teach the method of claim 1 and Barfonchovski further teaches:
wherein the second variable is set by a second thread executing within the cloned VM, based on the second thread determining that the external identifier of the cloned VM has changed ([0065] On startup of a service associated with the agent 350-356, the agent 350-356 checks whether the identifier (e.g., SMBIOS UUID, GUID, etc.) associated with its server 330-336 is the same as the identifier recorded in its configuration file... If the identifiers do not match, then the servers 334, 336 are cloned servers, and their agents 354, 356 begin a procedure to register the clone 334, 336 with the vA 320. A new node identifier and a new self-signed certificate are generated for each cloned agent 354, 356. Using the old certificate and old node identifier present on the cloned server 334, 336 from the original server 330 (trusted by the vA 320), the cloned agents 354, 356 each register themselves with the vA 320 using the new node identifier and self-signed certificate. Upon successful registration, the old node identifier and old certificate are removed from the cloned servers 334, 336, and the new identifier is stored in the configuration file for each server 334, 336; Examiner’s Note: If the identifiers do not match, a new identifier (second variable) is set.).
17. With regard to claim 3, Barfonchovski teaches the method of claim 2 and Wei further teaches:
wherein the second thread checks the first variable before setting the second variable (0051] Since a MAC address of the cloned machine is the same but an IP address is different, it may be determined whether the proxy end is a cloned machine by determining a heartbeat IP of heartbeat information; Claim 3, performing hash calculation on the second UUID to obtain a new UUID, and incrementing a second hash counter by 1 upon each hash calculation; when the second hash counter is equal to the first hash counter, determining whether the second UUID is the same as a third UUID which is currently subjected to hash calculation; and in response to the second UUID and the third UUID being the same, updating the second UUID and a value of the first hash counter to the management end database; or in response to the second UUID and the third UUID being different, notifying the proxy end of a need to re-register; Examiner’s Note: MAC address of the VM is unchanged, and the hash value is set to 0. Calculations on the UUID to produce a new UUID are done after determining that the MAC address is unchanged.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barfonchovski and Cao with the teachings of Wei wherein the second thread checks the first variable before setting the second variable. This causes the system to determine if re-registering is needed, as discussed in Wei (Claim 3).
18. With regard to claim 4, Wei teaches the method of claim 3 and Wei further teaches:
wherein in an instance where the first variable indicates that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier, setting the second variable to indicate that the external identifier has not been changed ([0051] Since a MAC address of the cloned machine is the same but an IP address is different, it may be determined whether the proxy end is a cloned machine by determining a heartbeat IP of heartbeat information; [0051] If the first hash counter is 0, it is indicated that the proxy end is not a cloned machine and registration is allowed; Examiner’s Note: If the hash counter is set to 0, that means that the VM is not cloned, indicating that its MAC address was unchanged.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barfonchovski and Cao with the teachings of Wei wherein in an instance where the first variable indicates that registration was triggered based on the internal identifier, setting the second variable to indicate that the external identifier has not been changed. This causes the system to determine if the VM is cloned or not, and if registration is allowed or re-registering is needed, as discussed in Wei (Abstract; Claim 3).
19. With regard to claim 6, Barfonchovski, Cao, and Wei teach the method of claim 1 and Cao further teaches:
wherein the internal identifier is at least one of a basic input/output system ("BIOS") universally unique identifier ("UUID") and a media access control ("MAC") address (([0021] Suppose operation 250 is an operation to clone VM 210. VM 220, which is a copy of VM 210, is then generated. During the cloning process, a new MAC address and a new virtual NIC, such as virtual MAC address 242 and virtual NIC 241, respectively, are also generated; [0022] In one embodiment, VM action monitor 162 may be installed prior to the initiation of operation 250 and may maintain stored copies of virtual MAC address 232 and the device identifier associated with virtual NIC 231 (e.g., network device name Eth0); Examiner’s Note: The internal identifier is a MAC address.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barfonchovski, Cao, and Wei with the teachings of Cao wherein the internal identifier is at least one of a basic input/output system ("BIOS") universally unique identifier ("UUID") and a media access control ("MAC") address. By having the MAC address, the system can locate the associated VM and correctly store and modify it when there are clones, as discussed in Cao ([0021]; [0022]).
20. With regard to claim 7, Barfonchovski, Cao, and Wei teach the method of claim 1 and Barfonchovski further teaches:
wherein the external identity is a VM universally unique identifier ("UUID") (0064] When the machine 330 is cloned, an identifier (e.g., its SMBIOS UUID, GUID, etc.) is changed from the identifier of the server 330 to generate a new identifier for the cloned server 334, 336 (e.g., a new UUID, GUID, etc.)).
21. Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
22. Regarding claim 9, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
23. Regarding claim 10, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
24. Regarding claim 11, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Regarding claim 13, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
26. Regarding claim 14, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
27. Regarding claim 15, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
28. Regarding claim 16, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
29. Regarding claim 17, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
30. Regarding claim 18, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
31. Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
32. Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
33. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Barfonchovski et al. US 20180159844 A1, Cao US 20150339144 A1, and Wei et al. US 20220417344 A1, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Kumar US 20120110574 A1.
34. With regard to claim 5, Wei teaches the method of claim 3 and Kumar further teaches:
wherein checking the first variable comprises asserting a signal on a memory bus without the first or second threads being locked ([0032] The initialization script is then stored at the virtual disk of the source virtual machine instance at block 120; [0037] Alternatively, for example, the initialization script can invoke an application programming interface ("API") of the execution environment (e.g., an operating system of the cloned virtual machine instance) to access the MAC address; [0080] As discussed above, in some embodiments, a virtual machine instance identifier can be provided (or accessible) to the initialization script and the runtime parameters generated can be based at least in part on the virtual machine instance identifier; [0088] As another example, a processor can be a computing device including multiple processors with a shared clock, memory bus, input/output bus, and/or other shared resources.[0090] For example, storage medium 821 can be a hard disk drive including a magnetic storage medium, storage medium 822 can be an optical drive such as a DVD drive and can accept DVD storage media on which processor-readable instructions can be stored, and storage medium 823 can be a FLASH memory drive with a Universal Serial Bus ("USB") interface; Examiner’s Note: The initialization script can prompt the system to access the MAC address (first variable). The script is stored in the virtual disk. The examples of storage medium can include a memory bus or a FLASH memory drive with a Universal Serial Bus ("USB") interface. Since the script is being run, it means the threads are not locked.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barfonchovski, Cao, and Wei with the teachings of Kumar wherein checking the first variable comprises asserting a signal on a memory bus without the first or second threads being locked. This allows the system to access information regarding VMs in order to properly clone and use them. Furthermore, a hypervisor can provision or provide access to (e.g., multiplex) components of a computing device (or machine) such as communications interfaces (e.g., a Universal Serial Bus ("USB") interface, an RS232 interface, or a network interface), data stores such as hard disk drives or compact disc ("CD") drives, and/or other components of a computing device to virtual machine modules. In other words, a hypervisor can be an intermediary between a virtual machine module and a computing device and/or other virtual machine modules, as discussed in Kumar ([0014]).
35. Regarding claim 12, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN-AN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, AIMEE LI can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/A.N.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195