DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/165,651 filed on 7 February 2023 where claims 1-20 are presented for examination by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 7 February 2023, 10 June 2024, and 26 August 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by claimed “the pool of virtual machines comprising the virtual machine”. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as meaning “the pool of virtual machines including the virtual machine” as it is otherwise unclear how a pool of a plurality of virtual machines could only comprise a single virtual machine. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 16 is rejected as being indefinite for similar reasons as recited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 16 contain are dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, while also being rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection applied herein.
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 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 of this title, 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, 8, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlmann et al. (U.S. 9,342,330) (Hereinafter Pohlmann) in view of Hartz et al. (U.S. 2007/0300221) (Hereinafter Hartz), further in view of Gepp et al. (U.S. 2022/0137999) (Hereinafter Gepp), further in view of in view of Buschi et al. (U.S. 2006/0224514) (Hereinafter Buschi), and further in view of Kou et al. (U.S. 2018/0341529) (Hereinafter Kou).
As per claim 1, Pohlmann discloses a system, comprising:
a processor circuit (see for example Pohlmann, this limitation is disclosed such that a system includes a processor (i.e. a processor circuit); col.7 line {64} – col.8 line {31}, col.8 lines {39}-{60}); and
a memory that stores program code that is executable by the processor circuit (see for example Pohlmann, this limitation is disclosed such that there is a memory with instructions executable by the processor; col.7 line {64} – col.8 line {38}), the program code comprising:
identif[ying], based on the identity of the first user, a deployment configuration assigned to the first user, the deployment configuration comprising device configuration information that specifies instructions for configuring the first computing device and link information that specifies a virtual machine provisioned according to the device configuration information (see for example Pohlmann, this limitation is disclosed such that a specification input is received from a user for deployment in a virtual machine. The input from the user is used to select virtual appliance templates by a network interface device, and a virtual machine computing environment is identified based on the input from the user; clm.1 and associated text);
Pohlmann does not explicitly teach to transmit connection instructions to the first computing device, the connection instructions comprising instructions to establish a connection between the first computing device and the virtual machine.
However, Hartz transmits connection instructions to the first computing device, the connection instructions comprising instructions to establish a connection between the first computing device and the virtual machine (see for example Hartz, there is a method of providing access by a remote computer to a computing environment, such environment having a virtual private network connection. The method of this embodiment includes providing a virtual machine image for loading onto the remote computer. This image (i) permits establishment of a virtual machine on the remote computer, (ii) has an operating system, (iii) includes instructions and data for establishing a VPN connection between the virtual machine and a computer environment, and (iv) is as yet not customized to a specific user. The method also includes providing previously generated customized configuration data from a source outside of the image to the operating system. The configuration data permits the virtual machine to log in to the environment and become registered onto a domain of the environment; paragraph [0014]).
Pohlmann in view of Hartz is analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, task management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Pohlmann by establishing a connection to a virtual machine as taught by Hartz because it would enhance the teaching of Pohlmann with an effective means of using a secure VPN connection between two points that can be carried over another network (as suggested by Hartz, see for example paragraph [0006]).
Pohlmann in view of Hartz does not explicitly monitor the first computing device to determine a completion of a setup phase; and responsive to the completion of the setup phase, provides a prompt to a virtual machine indicative of the completion of the setup phase.
However, Gepp monitors the first computing device to determine a completion of a setup phase (see for example Gepp, this limitation is disclosed such that a virtual switch DVS recognizes that a set up and transmission of a frame copy at a target SoC is finished; paragraphs [0049], [0051]); and
responsive to the completion of the setup phase, provides a prompt to a virtual machine indicative of the completion of the setup phase (see for example Gepp this limitation is disclosed such that a source and destination virtual machine is informed (i.e. providing a prompt to a virtual machine) that set up and transmission of the frame copy is finished; paragraphs [0049], [0051]).
Pohlmann in view of Hartz is analogous art with Gepp because they are from the same field of endeavor, task management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Pohlmann in view of Hartz by informing a virtual machine as taught by Gepp because it would enhance the teaching of Pohlmann in view of Hartz with an effective means of returning control to a virtual machine (as suggested by Gepp, see for example paragraphs [0049], [0051]).
Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp does not explicitly teach an enrollment service that: receives, from a first computing device associated with a first user, an enrollment request on behalf of the first user, the enrollment request comprising the identity of the first user.
However, Buschi discloses an enrollment service (see for example Buschi, this limitation is disclosed such that there is web page of a provider that is used to enroll users (i.e. an enrollment service); paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) that:
receives, from a first computing device associated with a first user, an enrollment request on behalf of the first user, the enrollment request comprising the identity of the first user (see for example Buschi, this limitation is disclosed such that the first time a user accesses the web page, the user enrolls by setting up a login identification (ID) and a password (receiving an enrollment request on behalf of a first user, comprising the identity of the first user); paragraphs [0021]-[0022]. The user may be on a phone or other pda device (i.e. a first computing device associated with the first user); paragraph [0050])
Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp is analogous art with Buschi because they are from the same field of endeavor, task management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp by performing enrollment as taught by Buschi because it would enhance the teaching of Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp with an effective means of a user creating a profile (as suggested by Buschi, see for example paragraph [0021]).
Although Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi discloses receiving, from a first computing device associated with a first user, an enrollment request on behalf of the first user, the enrollment request comprising the identity of the first user, Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi does not explicitly teach a request corresponding to a setup phase of an operating system of a first computing device.
However, Kou discloses a request corresponding to a setup phase of an operating system of a first computing device (see for example Kou, this limitation is disclosed such that requests to create an Hypervisor Secure Container (HSC) are associated with host OS start up (i.e. setup of an operating system of a first computing device); paragraph [0049]).
Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi is analogous art with Kou because they are from the same field of endeavor, task management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi by dealing with host OS start up as taught by Kou because it would enhance the teaching of Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi with an effective means of using physical address space in computer memory of hardware (as suggested by Kou, see for example paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 15, Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi, further in view of Kou discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the identity of the user comprises at least one of: an individual user identity corresponding to the first user; or a user group identity corresponding to a plurality of users, the plurality of users comprising the first user (see for example Pohlmann, this limitation is disclosed such that users are identified by a user account (i.e. an individual user identity corresponding to the first user); col.6 lines {55}-{64}).
As per claim 17, Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi, further in view of Kou discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the device configuration information specifies at least one of: an application to be installed on the first computing device; or a device setting to be configured on the first computing device (see for example Pohlmann, this limitation is disclosed such that a specification input is received from a user for deployment in a virtual machine. The input from the user is used to select virtual appliance templates by a network interface device, and a virtual machine computing environment is identified based on the input from the user; clm.1 and associated text).
Regarding claim 18, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Moreover, Pohlmann discloses interactions are performed via a user interface; Pohlmann col.8 lines {39}-{60}. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 20, Pohlmann in view of Hartz, further in view of Gepp, further in view of Buschi, further in view of Kou discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: monitoring the setup phase to determine at least one of: an error event, or completion of the setup phase (see for example Gepp, this limitation is disclosed such that a virtual switch DVS recognizes that a set up and transmission of a frame copy at a target SoC is finished; paragraphs [0049], [0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R LABUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, APRIL BLAIR can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/JONATHAN R LABUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2196