DETAILED ACTION
This Office Actions is in response to communication (Amendment) filed on 05/05/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 23-30 are pending. Claims 3 – 7, 11, 17, and 20 – 22 are canceled. Claims 1, 8, 12, 16, 19, 23, and 26 are amended. Claim 30 is newly added. This action is Final.
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 05/05/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 16, 19, 23, and 26 were amended. Claims 3 – 7, 11, 17, and 20 – 22 were canceled. Claim 30 was newly added. Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 23-30 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 23-30 are being considered on the merits.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) Rejection have been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims 1, 16, and 19 filed on 05/05/2026.
The previous rejection of claim 1, 2, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. For further details, see “response to arguments” below.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 05/05/2026 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 Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 05/05/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The examiner agreed with all of the amendment made to the claims 1, 16, and 19. The 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §103 Remarks
Applicant's arguments in the applicant’s remarks and amendments of independent claims 1, 16, and 19, found on pages 10-11 and filed on 05/05/2026, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that “on the further ground that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the collective teachings of Kuo, Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, Rakshit, and DeLuca in a manner that would reach these limitations.” The examiner fully considers and respectfully disagree. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner provided the appropriate motivation for a POSA to modify or combine the teaching of the references to come up with the claim invention. For further details, please see below claims rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103.
Regarding the remark that “While the present Office Action refers to Tolman on page 22 when rejecting now-canceled dependent claim 11, Tolman makes no mention whatsoever of simulating a change on a virtual representation, rather Tolman teaches away from the claim language by applying the change "to the physical computer," as the Office Action states, and not to the virtual representation for simulating the change.” The examiner fully considers and respectfully disagree, and would like to point out that that the overall concept of the reference Tolman is about "accessing a virtual representation of a first physical computer system, and in response to a request to access a virtual representation of the first physical computer system, a virtual computer may be instantiated from the first backup image on the server computer system." (Tolman - [0006] - [0007]). In addition, paragraph [0084] indicates that "FIG. 6, the server computer system 90 may create a new backup image of the virtual computer 400 and store the new backup image on a storage device 125 of the server computer system 90. The new backup image may specify the modified state of the virtual computer 400." and [0084], [0088] - [0090], all together discloses the concept that a backup image of the "virtual computer" 400 is generated and apply to the user computer 400. This would read on the claim limitation of old claim 11 because these steps happened after the user finished interact/making changes to the given endpoint, with the virtual representation/virtual computer 400, of the user computer/end point, (the user makes a change to the user computer/end point using the UI/Communication software 213 of the virtual representation/virtual computer 400), with the details are in [0080] - [0084]. Any interact/changes that user makes to the user computer via the virtual representation/virtual computer would also reflect at the UI/Communication software 213 of the virtual representation/virtual computer. Therefore, with the current claim language, in light of the Specification, the reference Tolman would be reasonable disclose the claiming feature of the old claim 11, based on the explanation above, and based on the claim language does not clearly indicate that where or how the changes are being made to the "endpoint" (via the virtual representation of the endpoint, which means the changes are also simulate/reflected at the interface of the virtual representation; OR the changes are made directly at the end point, then the changes are simulate/reflected to the interface of the virtual representation of the endpoint.)
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the limitation “Virtual representation creation event”, the examiner suggests to change the limitation as “virtual representation creation request” to make it consistency with the Specification.
Regarding the limitation “Jointly used”, the examiner suggests to change the limitation as “augmented with” to make it consistency with the Specification.
Regarding the limitation “accurately create”, the examiner suggests to change the limitation as “create high-fidelity” to make it consistency with the Specification.
Regarding the term “contemporaneous”, the examiner suggests to remove the term or change it to a different term that supported by the Specification.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the managing further comprises, for a given endpoint of the one or more endpoints”, the examiner suggests to change the underline limitation as “the given endpoint”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-16, 18-19, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. US Pub. No. US 10397303 B1 (hereafter Kuo), in further view of Gebhart et al. US Pub. No. US 20090228629 A1 (hereafter Gebhart), Mishra et al. US Pub. No. US 20200106670 A1 (hereafter Mishra), Parthasarathy et al. US Pub. No. US 20220342659 A1 (hereafter Parthasarathy), Tolman et al. US Pub. No. US 20090055822 A1 (hereafter Tolman), and Rakshit et al. US Pub. No. US 20210109837 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches the invention substantially as claimed: A method, comprising: generating one or more virtual representations of one or more endpoints in a computing environment, the generating comprising for a given endpoint of the one or more endpoints; (e.g. FIG. 1 and col 3, lines 55 – 64: “The virtual device representation module 112 may create a virtual device representation of an Internet of Things (IoT) device (e.g., one of the IoT devices 160) in association with the service provider environment 102 by having device state information associated with the virtual device representation to enable one or more services of the service provider environment 102 and/or one or more IoT devices 150 to communicate with the IoT device having the virtual device representation created by the virtual device representation module 112”) The citation discloses a virtual device representation of an IoT device/endpoint is created. FIG. 1 discloses multiple IoT devices/one or more endpoints.
and managing the one or more endpoints including the given endpoint in the computing environment via the one or more virtual representations; (e.g. Col 4, lines 62 – 67; col 5 lines 1 – 32 and col 5 lines 51 – 56: “The computing instances may host various services associated with or for the devices 230. The server 204 may include one or more computing instances that host a device shadowing service 212 configured to manage device representations 218 (e.g., virtual device representation or ‘persistent, virtual versions’) associated with the devices 230.”) The citations disclose the virtual device representation of the IoT device is used for managing, such as managing, controlling, updating, or adding, etc. the features of the IoT devices.
wherein the method is performed by at least one processor and at least one memory storing executable computer program instructions. (e.g. Col 7, lines 44 – 50: “The various processes and/or other functionality contained on the system components included in the system 200 may be executed on one or more processors that are in communication with one or more memory modules. The system 200 may include a number of computing devices that are arranged, for example, in one or more server banks or computer banks or other arrangements.”) The citation discloses the system 200 is executed on one or more processors and one or more memory modules.
Kuo fails to teaches obtaining device configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint for a virtual representation creation event, the device configuration-related metadata comprising hardware specifications, network specifications, hardware telemetry, and security information associated with a device configuration of the given endpoint, wherein at least a portion of the device configuration-related metadata is obtained from a unified endpoint management tool operatively coupled to the one or more endpoints; obtaining data configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint for the virtual representation creation event, the data configuration-related metadata comprising one or more images generated of one or more of data, software, and system files associated with the given endpoint, wherein data configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint is obtained from a remote backup system operatively coupled to the one or more endpoints; and creating, for a virtual representation creation event, a virtual representation of the given endpoint based on at least the device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata, wherein the device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata are jointly used to accurately create the virtual representation for a state of the given endpoint contemporaneous with the virtual representation creation event; wherein the managing further comprises, for a given endpoint of the one or more endpoints: applying a change to a corresponding one of the one or more virtual representations to simulate application of the change to the given endpoint; and presenting results of the applying of the change.
However, Gebhart teaches obtaining device configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint for a virtual representation creation event (e.g. [0033]: “The migration manager 162 may command the installed migration agent 130a to analyze the underlying operating system 116a and hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a to create a profile of physical machine 112a. The profile reflects the state of the physical machine 112a and may include...... hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a (e.g., devices at physical machine 112a, such as memory, central processing unit, network cards, graphics card, display adapters, modems, ports, game cards, sound cards, bus controllers, storage devices, and the like).” and [0034] and [0035]: “For example, since a virtual machine is created from the template, the template typically has the same so-called "look" as the physical machine.) The citations disclose the migration agent 130a analyzes the state of the physical machine to obtain the hardware characteristics/ device configuration-related metadata, to create a profile of physical machine. At [0034] discloses the profile is used to create an image of the physical machine, and [0035] discloses the creation of the virtual machine/virtual representation creation event, using the image.
the device configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint comprises hardware specifications, network specifications ......... information associated with a device configuration of the given endpoint. (e.g. [0033]: “The migration manager 162 may command the installed migration agent 130a to analyze the underlying operating system 116a and hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a to create a profile of physical machine 112a. The profile reflects the state of the physical machine 112a and may include...... hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a (e.g., devices at physical machine 112a, such as memory, central processing unit, network cards, graphics card, display adapters, modems, ports, game cards, sound cards, bus controllers, storage devices, and the like).”) The citations disclose the migration agent 130a analyzes the state of the physical machine to obtain the hardware characteristics/ device configuration-related metadata, wherein the hardware characteristic would comprise memory and CPU/hardware specifications, network card and modems and ports/network specification, to create a profile of physical machine.
wherein at least a portion of the device configuration-related metadata is obtained (e.g. [0033]: “The migration manager 162 may command the installed migration agent 130a to analyze the underlying operating system 116a and hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a to create a profile of physical machine 112a. The profile reflects the state of the physical machine 112a and may include...... hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a (e.g., devices at physical machine 112a, such as memory, central processing unit, network cards, graphics card, display adapters, modems, ports, game cards, sound cards, bus controllers, storage devices, and the like).”) The citations disclose the migration agent 130a analyzes the state of the physical machine to obtain the hardware characteristics/ device configuration-related metadata, to create a profile of physical machine.
The teaching the Gebhart only disclose the method of obtaining of the device configuration-related metadata, but fails to discloses the device configuration-related metadata is obtained using the unified endpoint management tool. The missing limitation will be taught by Parthasarathy, as discuss below.
obtaining data configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint for the virtual representation creation event; (e.g. [0033]: “The migration manager 162 may command the installed migration agent 130a to analyze the underlying operating system 116a and hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a to create a profile of physical machine 112a. The profile reflects the state of the physical machine 112a and may include operating system characteristics (e.g., an operating system name, an operating system version, an operating system patch level, and the like); operating system configuration (e.g., user accounts, network configuration, and the like);” and [0034] and [0035]: “For example, since a virtual machine is created from the template, the template typically has the same so-called "look" as the physical machine.) The citation discloses the migration agent 130a analyzes the state of the physical machine to obtain the operating system characteristics and operating system configuration/ data configuration-related metadata, to create a profile of physical machine. At [0034] discloses the profile is used to create an image of the physical machine, and [0035] discloses the creation of the virtual machine/virtual representation creation event, using the image.
the data configuration-related metadata comprises one or more images generated of one or more of data, software, and system files associated with the given endpoint. (e.g. [0033]: “The migration manager 162 may command the installed migration agent 130a to analyze the underlying operating system 116a and hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a to create a profile of physical machine 112a. The profile reflects the state of the physical machine 112a and may include operating system characteristics (e.g., an operating system name, an operating system version, an operating system patch level, and the like); operating system configuration (e.g., user accounts, network configuration, and the like)” and e.g. [0028] and [0034]: “At 230, image factory 122 creates an image for that received profile using a template, such as template 194. The template may provide information to configure a virtual machine using, for example, a specific type of operating system. A template, in this case, is a pre-created image that is used when new images of the physical machines are created (e.g., a copy used to create images of the physical machines).”) The citation discloses at [0033] the process of gathering the software files and data of the physical machine (operating system characteristics configurations). At [0034] discloses the image of the physical machine is generated using the collected profiles and a template. At [0028] discloses the example of the data within the template used for creating the image.
and creating, for the virtual representation creation event, a virtualized replica of the given endpoint based on at least the device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata. (e.g. [0034] and [0035]: “For example, since a virtual machine is created from the template, the template typically has the same so-called "look" as the physical machine. At 240, the virtual machine can be used to migrate the applications and/or data from the physical machine to the virtual machine.”) The citations disclose at [0034] that the migration manager 162 receives the profile information created by migration agent 130a, and image factory 122 creates an image for that received profile. At [0035] discloses the creation of the VM 132a using the image of the physical machine 112a.
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 obtaining device configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint for a virtual representation creation event, the device configuration-related metadata comprising hardware specifications, network specifications ........ associated with a device configuration of the given endpoint; obtaining data configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint for the virtual representation creation event, the data configuration-related metadata comprising one or more images generated of one or more of data, software, and system files associated with the given endpoint; and creating, for a virtual representation creation event, a virtualized representation of the given endpoint based on at least the device, as taught in Gebhart’s invention into Kuo’s invention because by obtaining the correct corresponding metadata of the endpoint, it helps to improve the precision and accuracy in creating, monitoring, and controlling of the virtual representation of the endpoint, and better reflecting current states and behavior of the endpoints in the virtualization environment.
However, Parthasarathy teaches is obtained from a unified endpoint management tool operatively coupled to the one or more endpoints. ([0023]: “FIG. 1 is an illustration of a system for performing intelligent software patch management. The system can include a data analytics platform (“DAP”) 110 that receives data from a variety of data sources, such as a Unified Endpoint Management (“UEM”) system 120, computing devices 130 (frequently referred to herein as “device 130” or “devices 130”)” and [0025]: “When a new computing device 130 enrolls with the UEM system 120, the UEM system 120 can capture attributes of the computing device 130 and send them to the DAP 110. Some examples of such attributes can include the device model, manufacturer, hardware properties, such as memory and disk sizes, and various settings on the device. Device attributes can also be referred to as “features,” and the two terms are used interchangeably throughout this application.”) the citation discloses the DAP receives/obtains information, such as hardware properties/device configuration-related metadata, of the computing device 130 from the Unified Endpoint Management system.
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 device configuration-related metadata is obtained from a unified endpoint management tool operatively coupled to the one or more endpoints., as taught in Parthasarathy’s invention into Kuo’s invention because by using the UEM tool to obtain the metadata of the endpoints, the system can ensure more accurate and consistent of the virtual representation of the endpoints, reduce errors caused by fragmented data sources, and improve the scalable and responsive to the real time configuration changes across the computing system.
However, Mishra teaches ....... hardware telemetry, and security information associated with a device configuration of the given endpoint. ([0026]: “In some examples, the device configuration values 142 can include metrics pertaining to the performance or operation of the hardware or software of the client device 106.” and [0031]: “In some examples, the management service 115 communicates with the agent application 126 or other client application 125 executable on the client device 106 to determine whether vulnerabilities exist on the client device 106 that do not satisfy policies defined by an administrator. Vulnerabilities can include, for example, the presence of a virus or malware on the client device 106, the client device 106 being “rooted” or “jailbroken” where root access is provided to a user of the client device 106, the presence of particular applications or files, questionable device configurations, vulnerable versions of client applications 125, or other vulnerability as can be appreciated.”) The citation discloses at [0026] the device configuration can include metric performance of the hardware/hardware telemetry, and at [0031] discloses the vulnerabilities information/security information.
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 ....... hardware telemetry, and security information associated with a device configuration of the given endpoint, as taught in Mishra’s invention into Kuo’s invention because by obtaining the correct corresponding hardware telemetry, and security information of the endpoint, it helps to improve the precision and accuracy in creating, monitoring, and controlling of the virtual representation of the endpoint, and better reflecting current states and behavior of the endpoints in the virtualization environment.
However, Tolman teaches wherein data configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint is obtained from a remote backup system operatively coupled to the one or more endpoints. (e.g. FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, and [0028]: “The user's computer system 82 may communicate with the server computer system 90 to store one or more backup images on the server computer system 90. For example, the server computer system 90 may be a server computer system managed by the user's employer or may be an off-site server computer system managed by a third party service provider.”) and [0046]: “When the user of the client access computer system 82 selects one of the stored backup images from the user interface displayed in the web browser, the service hosting software 215 may request the virtualization service software 209 to instantiate a virtual computer from the selected backup image.”) The citation discloses at FIG 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, and [0028] that the server computer system 90/remote backup system that stored the backup image/data configuration-related metadata of the user computer system 80. At [0046] discloses the client 82 can access the server 90 to instantiate a virtual computer from the selected backup image of the user computer 80.
wherein the managing further comprises, for a given endpoint of the one or more endpoints: applying a change to a corresponding one of the one or more virtual representations to simulate application of the change to the given endpoint; ([0007], [0084], and [0088] – [0090]) The citation discloses at [0007] when there is a changes of the virtual computer, a new backup image that contained the change is created and provided to the physical computer to apply the change. At [0084], and [0088] – [0090] describe the process of creating a new backup image that specify the modified state of the virtual computer, and applying the change to the user’s computer system.
and presenting results of the applying of the change. ([0093]: “For example, in some embodiments the server computer system 90 may automatically communicate with the user's computer system 80 to inform the user's computer system 80 that the new backup image was created on the server computer system 90, and the new backup image may be automatically transferred to and applied to the user's computer system 80.”) The citation discloses the new backup image created from the virtual computer 400 be transferred and applied to the user's computer system 80 automatically, or the user computer system can inform and promote the user to apply the new backup image.
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 data configuration-related metadata for the given endpoint is obtained from a remote backup system operatively coupled to the one or more endpoints; wherein the managing further comprises, for a given endpoint of the one or more endpoints: applying a change to a corresponding one of the one or more virtual representations to simulate application of the change to the given endpoint; and presenting results of the applying of the change, as taught in Tolman’s invention into Kuo’s invention because by using the remote backup system for storing and obtaining the metadata of the endpoints would allow the system to create the virtual representation using more complete and up to date data; as a result, when a processed change is applied to the virtual representation and the resulting behavior is presented, the system would be more accurately reflects how the actual endpoint would respond, and better to identify potential errors and compatibility issues, and thereby helps to improve stabilization of the system, enhance data reliability, reduce errors and minimizing downtime when applying new updating or new configurations to the endpoints.
However, Rakshit teaches wherein the device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata are jointly used to accurately create the virtual representation for a state of the given endpoint contemporaneous with the virtual representation creation event; (e.g. FIG. 5 and [0068] and [0069]: “Embodiments of the creation engine 205 may further create additional digital twin models 233 representing versions of the physical asset 217 over time. As the physical asset changes over time, including changes to one or more components, configurations, hardware, software, firmware, sensors 219, IoT devices 221, recording systems 223, maintenance, repairs, etc., the creation engine 205 may create a new digital twin model 233 reflecting the current state and/or condition of the physical asset 217 as a digital twin. Embodiments of the creation engine 205 may store the plurality of different digital twin models 233a-233d in repository 231. In some embodiments, the multiple versions of the digital twin models 233 can be sequenced or stored using a time-based scale and/or timeline 501 to track the evolution of the physical asset 217 and the subsequent changes to the physical asset 217. As shown in FIG. 5, timeline 501 depicts four versions of the physical asset 217 at various points in time. Each point in time is reflected by a new digital twin model 233a-233d that may be created by the creation engine 205 to catalog the changes to the physical asset 217.” and [0071]: “For example, changes in performance may indicate the presence of new parts or components, modified configurations, software or firmware update, damage, repairs, etc. Embodiments of the digital twin module 203 may analyze the performance changes based on the changes in the performance data collected and reflect the changes to the physical asset 217 as a new digital twin model 233 in some embodiments.”) The citation discloses the generation/creation, of virtual representation or digital twin, of different versions of a physical object at various points in time/ contemporaneous with the virtual representation creation event. At [0071] discloses some examples of configurations or components of the physical object that the system needs when creates the virtual representation of the object. The concept teaching form Rakshit would be similar to the claim limitation as the system would need to gathers configuration or components at the specific time in order to create the corresponding virtual representation of the object at the specific time, or to create the virtual representation for a state of the given endpoint contemporaneous with the virtual representation creation event. The configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata are taught by Kuo, Gebhart, and Mishra, as explain 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 device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata are jointly used to accurately create the virtual representation for a state of the given endpoint contemporaneous with the virtual representation creation event, as taught in Rakshit’s invention into Kuo’s invention because the addition features would ensure that the virtual representation reflects the endpoint actual state at the moment, which allows the users make more reliable management decisions, testing, and updating, because management actions are based on a consistent and reliable version, instead of outdated or mismatched configuration information. (Rakshit – [0018 – 0019])
Regarding claim 2, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 1, and Kuo further teaches wherein the one or more endpoints comprises one or more devices operatively coupled to at least one centralized computing platform. (FIG. 3 and Col 9, lines 64 – 67, and col 10, lines 1 – 4: “FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an example service provider environment 310 with which the devices 330 or IoT devices described earlier may communicate. The service provider environment 310, which may be referred to as a device communication environment or system that comprises various resources made accessible via a gateway server 340 to the devices 330 that access the gateway server 340 via a network 320.”) The citation discloses multiple IoT devices/endpoints communicate with the service provider environment/centralized computing platform.
Regarding claim 8, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 1, and Gebhart further teaches wherein creating a virtualized replica of the given endpoint based on at least a portion of the device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration- related metadata further comprises: instantiating one or more virtual processing elements ([0034]: “At 230, image factory 122 creates an image for that received profile using a template, such as template 194. The template may provide information to configure a virtual machine using, for example, a specific type of operating system. A template, in this case, is a pre-created image that is used when new images of the physical machines are created (e.g., a copy used to create images of the physical machines).”) The citation discloses the configuration of a virtual machine/virtual processing elements using the image of the physical machines.
in which to execute the virtualized replica of the given endpoint by mirroring, in the virtualized replica, at least a portion of the device configuration-related metadata and the data configuration-related metadata of the given endpoint. ([0033]: “The profile reflects the state of the physical machine 112a and may include operating system characteristics (e.g., an operating system name, an operating system version, an operating system patch level, and the like); operating system configuration (e.g., user accounts, network configuration, and the like); hardware characteristics of physical machine 112a (e.g., devices at physical machine 112a, such as memory, central processing unit, network cards, graphics card, display adapters, modems, ports, game cards, sound cards, bus controllers, storage devices, and the like).” and [0035]: “The migration manager 162 interacts with migration agent 130b of the instantiated virtual machine 132a in physical machine 112b to configure that virtual machine based on the profile. For example, since a virtual machine is created from the template, the template typically has the same so-called "look" as the physical machine.”) The citations disclose at [0033] the process of creating the profile of the physical machine that comprises the hardware and software configurations, and at [0035] the VMs has the same “look”/mirroring as the physical machine, since the VM is created from the profile of the physical machine.
Regarding claim 9, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 8, and Gebhart further teaches wherein the one or more virtual processing elements comprise one or more virtual machines ([0034]: “At 230, image factory 122 creates an image for that received profile using a template, such as template 194. The template may provide information to configure a virtual machine using, for example, a specific type of operating system. A template, in this case, is a pre-created image that is used when new images of the physical machines are created (e.g., a copy used to create images of the physical machines).”) The citation discloses the configuration of a virtual machine/virtual processing elements using the image of the physical machines.
and/or one or more containers.
Regarding claim 10, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 1, and Kuo further teaches wherein generating one or more virtual representations of one or more endpoints in a computing environment further comprises: receiving an identifier of a given one of the one or more endpoints for which a given virtual representation is to be generated. (e.g. Col 3, lines 45 – 52: “The data store 120 may include one or more physical device identifiers (ID) 124 that may be a unique identifier assigned to each physical device. The unique identifier may be translated into a uniform resource locator (URL) to enable the one or more services and the one or more IoT devices to communicate with a virtual device representation provided by the virtual device representation module 112 of the virtual device representation service 110.” And col 15, lines 7 – 11: “the virtual device representation of the device may be created on demand upon receiving a specific request at a specific URL. The virtual device representation of the device may be created on demand upon receiving a specific request at a URL”) The citation discloses the unique identifier assigned to each physical device, which is used to create the virtual device representation of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 11, and Kuo further teaches wherein applying a change to the virtual representation of the given endpoint to simulate application of the change to the given endpoint further comprises: receiving an identifier of the given endpoint; (e.g. Col 15, lines 35 – 38: “A request for data may be received from a requestor using a device identifier assigned to the device to communicate with the virtual representation of the device”) The citation discloses the unique identifier, which is used to identify the virtual device representation that corresponding to the IoT devices to communicate with a virtual device representation, is received from the requestor.
and identifying the corresponding one of the one or more virtual representations based on the received identifier. (e.g. Col 14, lines 52 – 64: “For example, starting in block 510, the method may include identifying a virtual device representation of a Internet of Things (IoT) device in a service provider environment having device state information associated with the virtual device representation to enable one or more services of the service provider environment and one or more IoT devices to communicate with the virtual representation of the IoT device. A unique identifier may be assigned to the IoT device to enable the one or more services and the one or more IoT devices to communicate with the virtual device representation, for data using the URL to communicate with the virtual device representation”) The citation discloses the unique identifier – URL, to identify the virtual device representation of the Internet of Things (IoT) device in the service provider environment.
Regarding claim 13, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 12, and Tolman further teaches wherein applying a change to the virtual representation of the given endpoint to simulate application of the change to the given endpoint further comprises: receiving the change to be applied to the corresponding one of the one or more virtual representations; (FIG. 1, FIG 3, [0030] and [0031], and [0047]: “For example, the UI/Communication software 213 may receive output information of the virtual computer from the virtual computer execution software 211 and may transform the output information into a form useable by the remote client access software to display a graphical user interface for the virtual computer on the client access computer system 82. The UI/Communication software 213 may also receive user input for the virtual computer from the remote client access software and pass the user input to the virtual computer execution software 211. The virtual computer executing under management of the virtual computer execution software 211 may then process the user input.”) The citations disclose at FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and [0030] and [0031] the concept of accessing the user’s computer system remotely using the client access computer system, which connect to the server computer system 90, and the user can interact and make changes to the software on the user computer system via the virtual computer representation. [0047] discloses any changes that user made will be display via the graphical user interface.
and executing the change to the corresponding one of the one or more virtual representations. ([0047]: “For example, the UI/Communication software 213 may receive output information of the virtual computer from the virtual computer execution software 211 and may transform the output information into a form useable by the remote client access software to display a graphical user interface for the virtual computer on the client access computer system 82. The UI/Communication software 213 may also receive user input for the virtual computer from the remote client access software and pass the user input to the virtual computer execution software 211. The virtual computer executing under management of the virtual computer execution software 211 may then process the user input.” and [0054], [0081] and [0082]) The citations disclose any changes that user made will be display via the graphical user interface. At [0081] and [0082] discloses an example when the user interacts with the virtual computer 400 through the client access computer system 82, the state of the virtual computer 400 may be modified, which is similar to the claim requirement.
Regarding claim 15, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 1, and Rakshit further teaches wherein a given one of the one or more virtual representations comprises one or more digital twin models of a corresponding one of the one or more endpoints in the computing environment. (e.g. FIG. 2A, and [0067]: “Embodiments of the host system 201 may execute program code of the digital twin module 203 to perform one or more functions or operations of the digital twin module 203, including, but not limited to retrieving and creating digital twin models 233, aggregating and organizing data generated by sensor device(s) 219, IoT devices 221 and/or recording system 223 of the physical asset(s) 217, simulating changes to the digital twin using one or more digital twin models, mapping simulation components of the digital twin models 233, selecting components to bypass and alternative components to substitute for bypassed components 701, providing overriding values 803, and reporting simulation results to the user.”) The citation discloses the creation of the digital twin module 203 of the physical asset(s) 217/endpoints.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is an apparatus claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is an apparatus claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 15. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rational as cited in the rejection of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is an apparatus claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 8, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is an apparatus claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 9, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is an apparatus claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 10, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is a computer program product claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 8, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is a computer program product claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 9, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is a computer program product claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 10, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is a computer program product claim that having similar limitations cited in claim 15, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo, Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, in further view of DeLuca et al. US Pub. No. US 20210096975 A1 (hereafter DeLuca)
Regarding claim 14, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the change is defined via a script or a command line.
However, DeLuca teaches wherein the change is defined via a script or a command line. ([0091]: “The containerization engine may be a client-server application which may comprise a server program running a daemon process, a REST API specifying one or more interfaces that the digital twin module 203 and/or other programs may use to talk to the daemon process and provide instructions to the digital twin module 203, as well as a command-line interface (CLI) client for inputting instructions.” and [0092] “Embodiments of the CLI may use the REST API of the containerization engine to control or interact with the daemon through automated scripting or via direct CLI commands”) The citation discloses the command-line interface (CLI) for the user to provide the instructions/changes to the digital twin, and at [0092] discloses the control or interact/change can be made via scripting or command-line CLI.
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 change is defined via a script or a command line, as taught in as taught in DeLuca’s invention into Kuo, Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit’s invention because by applying the changes via a script or command lines, it helps to enhance the flexibility and automation in managing virtual representation of the endpoints, faster deployment, and better scalability across multiple computing environments.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo, Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, in further view of Vaishnavi et al. US Pub. No. US 20240419577 A1 (hereafter Vaishnavi)
Regarding claim 30, Kuo, in view of Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Rakshit, discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: deleting the virtual representation of the given endpoint, in response to a virtual representation deletion event.
However, Vaishnavi teaches further comprising: deleting the virtual representation of the given endpoint, in response to a virtual representation deletion event. (e.g. [0089]: “In various embodiments, managing the at least one digital twin comprises creating the at least one digital twin, configuring the at least one digital twin, reading the at least one digital twin, updating the at least one digital twin, deleting the at least one digital twin, or a combination thereof.”)
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 further comprising: deleting the virtual representation of the given endpoint, in response to a virtual representation deletion event, as taught in as taught in DeLuca’s invention into Kuo, Gebhart, Mishra, Parthasarathy, Tolman, and Vaishnavi’s invention because the additional features of deleting the virtual representation of the given endpoint would prevent outdated or invalid representations from interfering the computing environment, thereby supporting more accurate workload distribution and maintaining reliable operation of the computing environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 20210089551 A1: The present invention recognize that a digital twin is created of a physical asset. The digital twin that is created is capable of learning, reasoning, updating, and changing as its physical counterpart changes. Embodiments of the present invention further recognize that IoT sensors can be embedded in and/or associated with the physical asset to collect usable data from the surrounding environment of the physical asset and/or the physical asset itself.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30am - 5:30PM 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, Pierre Vital can be reached on (571) 272-4215. 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