DETAILED ACTION The instant application having Application No. 18/239133 filed on 08/29/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claim 1-18 is/are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 10 is/are independent claims. 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 columns and line numbers 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. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609 , the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 08/16/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0266938 to Suzuki in further view of US 2014/0115228 to Zhou et al. (hereafter “Zhou”), US 2015/0195128 to Kim et al. (hereafter “Kim”) and US 2008/0059804 to Shah et al. (hereafter “Shah”) As per claim 1 , Suzuki discloses A virtual machine (VM) operating system (OS) configuration system (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0006 and 0046), comprising: a processor (FIG. 1; paragraph 0043: computing unit 11b), arranged to execute: a host VM (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0006 and 0046: “When a plurality of virtual machines are deployed on a single physical machine, it is possible to have a virtual machine dedicated to management purposes (referred to as a “management OS” or a “host OS”) manage access to devices by other virtual machines (sometimes referred to as “guest OSs”).” host OS aka. Host virtual machine), arranged to generate a driving signal for driving a booting of a guest VM (FIG. 1; paragraph 0046: “The virtual machines 13 and 13a are virtual computers that independently run OSs. The virtual machine 13 runs a host OS. The host OS manages the resources of the hardware 11 and performs management tasks such as starting and stopping an OS (also referred to as a “guest OS”) running on another virtual machine, such as the virtual machine 13a.”). Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering verification of a descriptor; a root module, arranged to verify the descriptor according to the first trigger signal to generate a verified descriptor, and store the verified descriptor in a protected memory; and the guest VM, wherein an OS of the guest VM is configured according to the verified descriptor . Zhou further discloses a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “For example, hypervisor 108 on host 122 may be requested (e.g., by a VM data center management platform such as vCenter Server) to run a VM 118, upon which, management agent 120 on host 122 may receive a notification from hypervisor 108 (e.g., by registering with hypervisor 108 to request notification of certain VM related events, such as VM startup, migration, shutdown and the like) of the intention to start VM 118, and accordingly communicates with global policy manager 126 to obtain the caching policy for VM 118 to confirm whether host 122 can comply with the caching policy of VM 118.” hypervisor is requested hypervisor notifying a management agent), for triggering verification of a descriptor (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “For example, hypervisor 108 on host 122 may be requested (e.g., by a VM data center management platform such as vCenter Server) to run a VM 118, upon which, management agent 120 on host 122 may receive a notification from hypervisor 108 (e.g., by registering with hypervisor 108 to request notification of certain VM related events, such as VM startup, migration, shutdown and the like) of the intention to start VM 118, and accordingly communicates with global policy manager 126 to obtain the caching policy for VM 118 to confirm whether host 122 can comply with the caching policy of VM 118.” management agent (root application as claimed) obtaining/confirming whether the policy of VM 118 can be satisfied); a root module, arranged to verify the descriptor according to the first trigger signal (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “For example, hypervisor 108 on host 122 may be requested (e.g., by a VM data center management platform such as vCenter Server) to run a VM 118, upon which, management agent 120 on host 122 may receive a notification from hypervisor 108 (e.g., by registering with hypervisor 108 to request notification of certain VM related events, such as VM startup, migration, shutdown and the like) of the intention to start VM 118, and accordingly communicates with global policy manager 126 to obtain the caching policy for VM 118 to confirm whether host 122 can comply with the caching policy of VM 118.” management agent (root application as claimed) obtaining/confirming whether the policy of VM 118 can be satisfied) to generate a verified descriptor, and store the verified descriptor in a protected memory; and the guest VM, wherein an OS of the guest VM is configured according to the verified descriptor (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “If cache module 110 determines that SSD device 106 of host 122 can support the caching policy of VM 118, then cache module 110 may allocate a portion of SSD device 106 to be used as a cache for VM 118 when VM 118, for example, performs I/O in order to read or write data to a virtual disk file that resides in a shared disk array 102.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Zhou into Suzuki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of Global caching policy manager 126 maintains VM-specific caching policies such that the policies are accessible to a number of hosts in a data center or managed cluster (Zhou, paragraph 0007). Kim further discloses to generate a verified descriptor (paragraphs 0019 and 0099: “verifying the received configuration management information, combining information of the virtual machine created in the cloud with the verified configuration management information, and distributing the configuration management information combined with the virtual machine information to a configuration management server.” combining/creating verified configuration information and VM info), and store the verified descriptor in a memory (paragraphs 0019 and 0099: verified configuration info sent to config. Management sever ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Kim into Suzuki’s teaching and Zhou’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of supporting configuration management such that the same configuration management designated by a user is applied to each virtual machine in various cloud environments, and an apparatus and method for brokering a cloud service using the automation supporting apparatus (Kim, paragraph 0007). Suzuki in view of Zhou and Kim discloses the descriptor is verified, however, Zhou does not disclose store the descriptor in a protected memory. Shah further discloses store the descriptor in a protected memory (paragraph 0078: “If a policy or profile is established, for example, to administer password update procedures, the TPM/TSS 815 also protects the policy and profile information by storing them in a memory protected by a TPM binding storage key.”) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Shah into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, and Kim’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of protects the policy and profile information by storing them in a memory protected by a TPM binding storage key (Shah, paragraph 0078). As per claim 10 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 0 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhou, Kim and Shah, as applied to claim s 1 and 10 , and further in view of US 2017/0359378 to Reitsma et al. (hereafter “ Reitsma ”) As per claim 2 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the descriptor is provided by the host VM. Reitsma further discloses wherein the descriptor is provided by the host VM (FIG. 1 and 5; paragraphs 0035-0037: “ the policy check controller 120 may also send an instruction signal to the host virtual machine server 115 to send the first set of policies to the first electronic client device 105. ”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Reitsma into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of enforcing device policies ( Reitsma , paragraph 00 13 ). As per claim 1 1 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2 . Accordingly, claim 1 1 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 . Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhou, Kim and Shah, as applied to claim s 1 and 10 , and further in view of US 2009/0265707 to Goodman et al. (hereafter “Goodman”) and US 2016/0366240 to Jung. As per claim 3 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the host VM comprises: a VM monitor, arranged to generate a monitor signal in response to the guest VM being required to be generated; and an OS driver, arranged to generate the driving signal according to the monitor signal. Goodman further discloses a VM monitor, arranged to generate a monitor signal in response to the guest VM being required to be generated ( FIGs. 2B; paragraphs 0043 and 0045). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Goodman into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of us ing a user interface to electronically reassign more CPUs and/or memory/storage resources to virtual machines that the administrator identifies as running too slowly ( Goodman , paragraph 00 08 ). Jung further discloses an OS driver, arranged to generate the driving signal according to the monitor signal (paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0035 and 0037) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Jung into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , Shah’s teaching, and Goodman’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of based on whether a secure application of the secure virtual machine is executed or whether a user input is transmitted from the secure application, the virtual machine monitor portion may transmit the user input signals only to the secure virtual machine ( Jung , paragraph 00 08 ). As per claim 1 2 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3 . Accordingly, claim 1 2 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 . Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhou, Kim, Shah, Goodman and Jung, as applied to claim s 3 and 12 , and further in view of Reitsma . As per claim 4 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the VM monitor is further arranged to provide the descriptor to a host VM memory, and the root module is further arranged to obtain the descriptor from the host VM memory. Zhou further discloses the root module is further arranged to obtain the descriptor from the host VM memory (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “For example, hypervisor 108 on host 122 may be requested (e.g., by a VM data center management platform such as vCenter Server) to run a VM 118, upon which, management agent 120 on host 122 may receive a notification from hypervisor 108 (e.g., by registering with hypervisor 108 to request notification of certain VM related events, such as VM startup, migration, shutdown and the like) of the intention to start VM 118, and accordingly communicates with global policy manager 126 to obtain the caching policy for VM 118 to confirm whether host 122 can comply with the caching policy of VM 118.” management agent (root application as claimed) obtaining/confirming whether the policy of VM 118 can be satisfied). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Zhou into Suzuki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of Global caching policy manager 126 maintains VM-specific caching policies such that the policies are accessible to a number of hosts in a data center or managed cluster (Zhou, paragraph 0007). Reitsma further discloses wherein the VM monitor is further arranged to provide the descriptor to a host VM memory (FIG. 1 and 5; paragraphs 0035-0037). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Reitsma into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , Shah’s teaching, Goodman’s teaching and Jung’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of enforcing device policies ( Reitsma , paragraph 00 13 ). As per claim 1 3 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4 . Accordingly, claim 1 3 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 . Claims 5 -6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhou, Kim and Shah, as applied to claim s 1 and 10 , and further in view of US 2008/0134178 to Fitzgerald et al. (hereafter “Fitz g erald”) As per claim 5 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the hypervisor comprises: a pre-booting manager, arranged to: generate the first trigger signal according to the driving Signal; and after the verification of the descriptor is completed, generate a second trigger signal for triggering the booting of the guest VM; and a booting manager, arranged to perform the booting of the guest VM according to the second trigger signal. Zhou further discloses wherein the hypervisor comprises: generate the first trigger signal according to the driving Signal (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “For example, hypervisor 108 on host 122 may be requested (e.g., by a VM data center management platform such as vCenter Server) to run a VM 118, upon which, management agent 120 on host 122 may receive a notification from hypervisor 108 (e.g., by registering with hypervisor 108 to request notification of certain VM related events, such as VM startup, migration, shutdown and the like) of the intention to start VM 118, and accordingly communicates with global policy manager 126 to obtain the caching policy for VM 118 to confirm whether host 122 can comply with the caching policy of VM 118.” hypervisor is requested hypervisor notifying a management agent) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Zhou into Suzuki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of Global caching policy manager 126 maintains VM-specific caching policies such that the policies are accessible to a number of hosts in a data center or managed cluster (Zhou, paragraph 0007). Fitzgerald further discloses a pre-booting manager, arranged to: after the verification of the descriptor is completed (paragraphs 0036, 0057 , 0078-0079: “ the enforce module 207 is configured to execute policy-based checking of the VMs, as well as their respective hosts (such as host/VMM 103) and/or the requester. For instance, the enforce module 207 can be configured to check if a guest/VM 107 is properly licensed, and/or if the target host has the proper security software and patches installed, and/or to check if the requester has access permission to use the guest/VM 107. The context and time of the request can also be checked for policy compliance to enforce policies regarding execution windows (e.g., M-F, 9-5) and intended uses (e.g., production vs. test). ”) generate a second trigger signal for triggering the booting of the guest VM (paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078 and 0079: “ After pre-execution processing, if ok to execute (e.g., VM complies with all content policies), then the event handler 217 directly invokes the start VM request. ”) ; and a booting manager, arranged to perform the booting of the guest VM according to the second trigger signal (FIG. 2B; requesting to start executing/start; paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078 and 0079: “ After pre-execution processing, if ok to execute (e.g., VM complies with all content policies), then the event handler 217 directly invokes the start VM request. ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Fitzgerald into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of applying one or more compliance policies to an execution platform of the VM to determine if the execution platform is compliant with the VM compliance scheme associated with the managed system ( Fitzgerald , paragraph 00 09 ). As per claim 6 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a boot loader, arranged to perform a check operation upon the verified descriptor, to generate a checked descriptor ; wherein the OS of the guest VM is configured according to the checked descriptor. Fitzgerald further discloses a boot loader, arranged to perform a check operation upon the verified descriptor, to generate a checked descriptor (paragraphs 0078-0079: “ Thus, the enforce module 207 applies the policies and detects non-compliances, and the adapt VM module 211 makes the changes necessary to bring the VM into compliance. ”) ; wherein the OS of the guest VM is configured according to the checked descriptor (FIG. 2B; requesting to start executing/start; paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078 and 0079: “ After pre-execution processing, if ok to execute (e.g., VM complies with all content policies), then the event handler 217 directly invokes the start VM request. ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Fitzgerald into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of applying one or more compliance policies to an execution platform of the VM to determine if the execution platform is compliant with the VM compliance scheme associated with the managed system ( Fitzgerald , paragraph 00 09 ). As per claim 1 4 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5 . Accordingly, claim 1 4 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 . As per claim 1 5 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 6 . Accordingly, claim 1 5 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 . Claims 7 , 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhou, Kim and Shah, as applied to claim s 1 and 10 , and further in view of US 2013/0054948 to Raj et al. (hereafter “Raj”) As per claim 7 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the root module is a root VM generated by the hypervisor. Raj further discloses wherein the root module is a root VM generated by the hypervisor (paragraph 0035: “ As described herein, hypervisor 312 manages and creates root VM 314 and guest VM(s) 318, and presents guest VM(s) 318 as virtual operating platforms on which users may install guest software such as a guest OS (not shown). ”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Raj into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of m ore secure cloud computing services are provided through use of a reduced virtualization stack running on one or more production servers of a data center ( Raj , paragraph 00 03 ). As per claim 9 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the root module is implemented by an application (APP) generated by the hypervisor . Raj further discloses wherein the root module is implemented by an application (APP) generated by the hypervisor ( FIGs. 2-4; paragraphs 0059 and 0079: a VM (APP as claimed)) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Raj into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of m ore secure cloud computing services are provided through use of a reduced virtualization stack running on one or more production servers of a data center ( Raj , paragraph 00 03 ). As per claim 1 6 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7 . Accordingly, claim 1 6 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 . As per claim 1 8 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 9 . Accordingly, claim 1 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 . Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Zhou, Kim and Shah, as applied to claim s 1 and 10 , and further in view of US 2012/0069842 to Reddy et al. (hereafter “Reddy”) As per claim 8 , Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the root module is a hardware component executed on the processor. Reddy further discloses wherein the root module is a hardware component executed on the processor ( FIGs. 2-4; paragraphs 0059 and 0079) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Reddy into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching , and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of each replication engine can be associated with one or more member devices included in the specified multicast group, thus ensuring that each member device will receive a copy of the data packet. ( Eddi , paragraph 00 18 ). As per claim 1 7 , it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 8 . Accordingly, claim 1 7 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 . Conclusion The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c) . Prior arts: US 2021/0264559 to Roper In one embodiment, when a guest is booted in a VM with the VF virtual display model supported, the virtual display driver 1665-1667 first collects the virtual display information by reading the PV_INFO registers populated by the host VM 1601 and then creates the display objects according to this virtual display information. US 2019/0273683 to Jiang In response to SDN node agent 322's subscription message, HyperBus 320 sends the relevant configuration for this client (e.g., container host VM 212) based on the client ID. US 2018/0285200 to Inbaraj In this example, the validation component 356 obtains the specification/configurations of the VM 203-1 and the identity of the hypervisor 214 from the metadata of the backup image 362-1. Subsequently, the validation component 356 may instruct the hypervisor 214 (or another capable hypervisor) to create a mock VM based on the specification/configurations of the VM 203-1 and then try to deploy and execute the backup image 362-1 on the mock VM. US 2017/0090963 to Nakajima Each trigger condition 334 may be embodied as any policy, filter, or other conditional test that may be evaluated by the root hypervisor 320. US 2016/0156591 to Zhou After receiving a new firewall configuration message from the network manager, the hypervisor programs the filter of all protected VMs with new rules. Rather than passing all received rules to every applicable filter in the kernel, the hypervisor in some embodiments implements a search structure (such as the search structure 431 for the hypervisor 311) that allows each VM's filter to quickly identify the relevant rules from all of the received rules. Search structures for identifying relevant rules will be further described below in Section II. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm . The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital , can be reached at telephone number (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. 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form . /TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198