DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on June 4, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Finding the Optimal Virtual Machine Setup for Nested Virtualization” by MOHAN et al in view of “Scenarios for Implementation of Nested Virtualization Technology in Task of Improving Cloud Firewall Fault Tolerance” by TKACHOV et al.
As to claim 1, MOHAN teaches an information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor for generating a nested virtual machine wherein the virtual machines are allocated different amounts of resources (
PNG
media_image1.png
536
1338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
However, MOHAN does not teach the phase detection associated with the generated virtual machines.
TKACHOV teaches a methodology to generate, using a hypervisor, a plurality of virtual machines including a management virtual machine (EN: nested virtualization wherein a virtual machine is a base virtual machine to additional virtual machine) that manages the plurality of virtual machines, detect a phase of the plurality of virtual machines from a predetermined plurality of phases, the predetermined plurality of phases being different operation states of the plurality of virtual machines, and set resource allocation times for the plurality of virtual machines to predetermined schedules for each of the plurality of phases based on the detected phase of the plurality of virtual machines (EN: the phase associated with the virtual machines are not defined, thus the virtual machines having an functional / failed or incorrectly working state / nested state / non-nested state reads on the virtual machine being in a certain phase wherein based on such an appropriate amount of CPU time / time slices is allocated to the virtual machine based on queue waiting time. Further note, pg. 761-762, highlighted sections,
PNG
media_image2.png
968
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
730
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the known techniques of TKACHOV to the base device of MOHAN to vary the resources allocated to the various nested virtual machines based on their operations.
As to claim 2, both TKACHOV and MOHAN teaches the plurality of phases include a startup phase, and in a case in which the startup phase is detected, the processor sets the allocation time only to the management virtual machine or sets the allocation time for the management virtual machine to a longer time than the allocation times for the other virtual machines (EN: In TKACHOV, allocation only to the management virtual machine based on formula 3 OR formula 4 on pg. 761-762; Further note MOHAN, pg. 3, Table 1 wherein virtual machine has 2 processors allocated and nested virtual machine has 1). Refer to claim 1 for the motivation to combine.
As to claim 3, both TKACHOV and MOHAN teaches the plurality of phases include a normal phase, and in a case in which it is detected that the plurality of virtual machines is in the normal phase, the processor sets the allocation times for the plurality of virtual machines to predetermined normal times (EN: As indicated in comments in Response to Arguments section, no distinction of whether normal times is the same periods as the allocation times in startup phase or sleep phase. Thus, in TKACHOV, allocation only to the management virtual machine based on formula 3 OR formula 4 on pg. 761-762; Further note MOHAN, pg. 3, Table 1 wherein virtual machine has 2 processors allocated and nested virtual machine has 1). Refer to claim 1 for the motivation to combine.
As to claim 4, both TKACHOV and MOHAN teaches the plurality of phases include a sleep phase (failed or incorrectly working), and in a case in which it is detected that the plurality of virtual machines is in the sleep phase, the processor sets the allocation time for the management virtual machine to a longer time than the allocation times for the other virtual machines (EN: In TKACHOV, allocation only to the management virtual machine based on formula 3, thereby indicating no allocation and thus less than the allocation to management virtual machine OR formula 4 on pg. 761-762 wherein S+1 to management virtual machine and formula goes to nested virtual machines; Further note MOHAN, pg. 3, Table 1 wherein virtual machine has 2 processors allocated and nested virtual machine has 1). Refer to claim 1 for the motivation to combine.
As to claim 6, reference is made to a method that corresponds to the device of claim 1 and is therefore met by the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 7, reference is made to a computer program product, non-transitory storage medium, that corresponds to the device of claim 1 and is therefore met by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Finding the Optimal Virtual Machine Setup for Nested Virtualization” by MOHAN et al in view of “Scenarios for Implementation of Nested Virtualization Technology in Task of Improving Cloud Firewall Fault Tolerance” by TKACHOV et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of PRANTNER (Publication 20200326980).
As to claim 5, MOHAN and TKACHOV substantially disclose the invention of assigning processor times to virtual machines. However, the combination does not teach a vehicle for allocating time slices to virtual machines.
PRANTER teaches a vehicle equipped with the information processing device for allocating time slices to virtual machines ([0037], [0011]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of PRANTNER to the teachings of MOHAN and TKOCHOV to allocate processor time to virtual machines.
As to claim 8, MOHAN and TKACHOV substantially disclose the invention of assigning processor times to virtual machines. However, the combination does not teach detecting the startup of the system for the assignment to the virtual machines.
PRANTNER teaches a known process of detecting that the plurality of virtual machines is in the startup phase in a case in which it is detected that a power supply is switched on (Note [0110-0115], wherein the system upon start-up starts a vCPU for the virtual machine and assigns its time accordingly). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing of the claimed invention that the start-up of the system is a switching on from the systems’ power supply.
Refer to claim 5 for the motivation to combine.
As to claim 9, the combination of MOHAN, TKOCHOV and PRANTER teaches the processor is configured to detect that the plurality of virtual machines is in the normal phase in a case in which a notification to end the startup phase is received from one of the plurality of virtual machines (EN: There is no distinction between the operations of the virtual machines from startup and normal phases, or that its assigned processor time would change in such a phase. Further, the management virtual machine can trigger the assignment of processor time to the remaining virtual machines. Thus, PRANTNER teaches a known process of detecting that the plurality of virtual machines is in the startup phase wherein processor time is allocated to the virtual machines (Note [0110-0115], wherein the system upon start-up starts a vCPU for the virtual machine and assigns its time accordingly). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing of the claimed invention that the start-up of the system is a switching on from the systems’ power supply. Further TKACHOV teaches the assignment of processor time to remaining virtual machines that factors in any average waiting for a request in a queue (EN: the phase associated with the virtual machines are not defined, thus the virtual machines having an functional / failed or incorrectly working state / nested state / non-nested state reads on the virtual machine being in a certain phase wherein based on such, an appropriate amount of CPU time / time slices is allocated to the virtual machine based on queue waiting time. Further note, pg. 761-762, highlighted sections mapped in claim 1. Further note nested virtualization is defined as the management virtual machine is a hypervisor to the nested layers and thus receives different time slices compared to the nested virtual machines as outlined in MOHAN (see Introduction and Figure 1 and Table 1). Refer to claim 5 for the motivation to combine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further there are several observations associated with the application that was gleaned from the arguments. In the remarks, it appears the application is directed to situations where one moves from one resource allocation time schedule for the plurality of virtual machines to another based on a detected change in the phase of a virtual machine (either the management virtual machine or the one of the plurality of other virtual machines). This capability appears to be dynamic in selection by allocating a different respective static assignment of CPU time / time slices per phase when detected. This appears to be supported in figure 5 and its associated description, specification paragraphs 0034-0045. In comparing this description to the claims it is noted that 1) Claim 1 describes an overall architecture that a device has a plurality of virtual machines (both management and sub-virtual machines) that can operate in a plurality of phases and based on a phase processor time is allocated; and 2) Independently BRI determinations of 1+2; 1+3; and 1+4 describe an individual phase alone and the amount of resources that are allocated in that phase. Based on these claims, there is never a switch or any dynamic considerations associated with changing time slices among the virtual machine architecture as there is never an initial stage the system is in; one virtual machine phase detected as being changed, and triggering the changing / alteration of the time slices allocation schedule for all virtual machines therefrom. Thus, the argued benefit / distinction alleged would not be realized. Further it is noted that claim 3 indicates when the virtual machines are detected to be in a normal phase that triggers the allocation times of predetermined normal times – it is unclear what is considered normal phase other than being a non-start-up, or non-sleep phases. Further it is unclear if the predetermined normal times are different from the time slice times used for the start-up or sleep phases. It is advised that Applicant amends the independent claims to include all the different phases and allocation times schedules currently outlined in claims 2-4; indicate the virtual machines are in the start up phase and subsequently detecting a change of either the management virtual machine or one of the plurality of virtual machines to the normal or sleep phase; and based on the change to either the normal or sleep phase, changing the allocation times for the management virtual machine and plurality of virtual machines accordingly, WHEREIN the predetermined normal times are times different from the times associated with the startup phase or the sleep phase.
In regards to the 101, the act of setting resource allocation times for the virtual machines based on the detected phase of he plurality of virtual machines constitutes a practical application of the abstract idea and thus the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
In regards to the obvious double patent rejection, the terminal disclaimer filed and approved negates the issue and thus the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (Publication 20170262306) teaches nested virtualization environment wherein the exits of virtual machines causes the reallocation, removal or transfer of control of resources.
Guttahalli Krishna et al (Publication 20160224388) teaches dynamically optimize platform resource allocation of a logically partition system based on inefficient monitored usage of the resources.
Guarav et al (Patent 9378044) teaches using machine learned models to calculate an appropriate resource allocation for virtual machines and changes the resource allocations for virtual machines based on predicted operational characteristics of the computer system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIS ALEXANDER BULLOCK JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cordelia Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights