DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- interFace -- should be -- interface -- in [0022].
Missing detail description of fig. 9 in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Missing label for block --VM INITIALIZATION -- in fig. 8.
Delete -- blank block -- present at the end of the flow in fig. 8.
Missing numerical labels in fig. 9 and 10 as described in specification [0057]-[0058].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “generate the plurality of virtual machine” and later recites “plurality of virtual machine is activated”. It is unclear if the generated plurality of virtual machine is in what state before activation and after generation i.e. if the generated virtual machine is stored or suspended or running before being activated.
Claim 1 recites “data needed to activate the virtual machine” without clearly reciting what constitutes the data that is used for activation.
Claims 5 and 6 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-4 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post-Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-6 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “generating plurality of virtual machines; loading data of the plurality of virtual machines into volatile memory at a time when the managing virtual machine is activated and reading the virtual machine data from the volatile memory at the time of activation of plurality of virtual machine” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a device comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 5 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 6 recites a non-transitory medium, which falls within the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim Elements
i
1. An information processing device comprising:
generic computing device
ii
a non-volatile memory storing, for each of a plurality of virtual machines including a managing virtual machine that manages the plurality of virtual machines, data needed to activate the virtual machine;
generic computing components / process
iii
a volatile memory; and a processor coupled to the non-volatile memory and the volatile memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
generic computing components
iv
generate the plurality of virtual machines, at a time when the managing virtual machine is activated,
mental process abstract idea (emphasis added)
v
read out the respective data of the plurality of virtual machines from the non-volatile memory and store the data in the volatile memory, and
information transfer
vi
at a time when each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines is activated, read out the data of the virtual machine from the volatile memory.
mental process abstract idea
The process described by steps [iv] and [vi] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [iv] and [vi] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [iv] recites “generate the plurality of virtual machines, at a time when the managing virtual machine is activated”, which is directed to generating virtual machines at the time of activation of managing virtual machine. Performing an action at a certain time amounts to scheduling an action, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Similarly, step [vi] recites “at a time when each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines is activated, read out the data of the virtual machine from the volatile memory”, which is also directed to reading out data at a time when virtual machines is activated and has element of scheduling an act, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid.
Therefore, steps [iv] and [vi] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception of mental process. For these same reasons, similar claims 5 and 6 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1 and 7 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps /elements [i]-[v]. Claim 1 in step [i]-[iii] recites “an information processing device comprising: a non-volatile memory storing, for each of a plurality of virtual machines including a managing virtual machine that manages the plurality of virtual machines, data needed to activate the virtual machine; a volatile memory; and a processor coupled to the non-volatile memory and the volatile memory, wherein the processor is configured”, all of which is examples of generic computing components and/or generic computing processes e.g. information processing device, non-volatile memory, volatile memory are common computing components and storing data is a common computing process, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Therefore, these additional claim elements, either alone or in combination, are not considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in step [iv] recites “generating the plurality of virtual machine” in addition to the mental process abstract idea. However, generating virtual machine is neither inventive nor provide improvement to functioning of computer technology and therefore don’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 step [v] recites “read out the respective data of the plurality of virtual machines from the non-volatile memory and store the data in the volatile memory”, which is directed to information transfer and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the functioning of the computer. Therefore, these additional claim elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[v] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea, and therefore, claim elements recited in steps [i]-[v] , under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 5 and 6 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 5 and 6 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
As explained above under the section Prong Two, In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps /elements [i]-[v]. Claim 1 in step [i]-[iii] recites “an information processing device comprising: a non-volatile memory storing, for each of a plurality of virtual machines including a managing virtual machine that manages the plurality of virtual machines, data needed to activate the virtual machine; a volatile memory; and a processor coupled to the non-volatile memory and the volatile memory, wherein the processor is configured”, all of which is examples of generic computing components and/or generic computing processes e.g. information processing device, non-volatile memory, volatile memory are common computing components and storing data is a common computing process and are well-understood, routine and conventional, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art (See Spec [0002] and cited prior arts in PTO-892). Therefore, these additional claim elements, either alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in step [iv] recites “generating the plurality of virtual machine” in addition to the mental process abstract idea. However, generating virtual machine is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity and therefore do not amount to significantly more (See Spec [0002] and cited prior arts in PTO-892). Claim 1 step [v] recites “read out the respective data of the plurality of virtual machines from the non-volatile memory and store the data in the volatile memory”, which is directed to information transfer and transfer of information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity See Spec [0002] and cited prior arts in PTO-892) and therefore doesn’t amount to significantly more. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, Claim 1 is not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to mental process abstract idea without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Based on similar analysis / rationales, similar claims 5 and 6 are also directed to mental process abstract idea without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the managing virtual machine reads out the data of the virtual machines from the non-volatile memory and stores the data in the volatile memory, in an order corresponding to preset priority levels of the respective virtual machines”, which is directed to perform reading out the data in certain order corresponding to the priority of virtual machine, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Therefore, these are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the managing virtual machine is activated first among the plurality of virtual machines”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Dependent claim 4 recites a vehicle comprising the information processing device of claim 1, which is directed to applying claim 1 to a common environment. Applying an abstract idea to a technological environment do not make the abstract idea patent eligible.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONDA et al. (US 2021/0064409 A1, hereafter Onda) in view of Shimizu et al. (JP 2009199190 A, hereafter Shimizu).
Both Onda and Shimizu were cited in the IDS filed on 07/29/2025.
As per claim 1, Onda teaches the invention substantially as claimed including an information processing device comprising ([0017] fig. 1 Electronic control unit 20 i.e. information processing device):
a non-volatile memory storing, for each of a plurality of virtual machines including a managing virtual machine that manages the plurality of virtual machines ([0095] fig. 1 ROM 20B, control program 200 stored in advance; [0082] VM control section 260 is structured at one of the VMs 110 [0083] fig. 7 VM for control 120 VM control section 260 fig. 2 VMs 110 [0020] control program 200 stored in the ROM 20B, activation processing [0026] [0027] VM control section 260, controlling the assignation of the order of activating or ending the respective VMs 100), data needed to activate the virtual machine ([0020] activation order table 220, stored in ROM 20B; fig. 1 20B 220, activation processing [0028] activation order table 220 is a table that prescribes the activation order of the respective VMs 110 [0026] [0027] VM control section 260, controlling the assignation of the order of activating or ending the respective VMs 100 );
a volatile memory (fig. 1 RAM 20C); and
a processor coupled to the non-volatile memory and the volatile memory (fig. 1 CPU 20A, RAM 20C, ROM 20B), wherein the processor is configured to ([0019] fig. 1 CPU 20A, executes, program and controls):
generate the plurality of virtual machines ([0026] VM structuring section 250, virtually structuring the respective VMs 110 [0035] S100 fig. 5 respective VMs 110 are virtualized, fig. 6), at a time when the managing virtual machine is activated ([0083] fig. 7 activates the VM 120 for control immediately after boosting the hypervisor [0024] fig. 2 CPU 20A loading the control program 200 stored in the ROM 20B), read out the respective data of the plurality of virtual machines from the non-volatile memory and store the data in the volatile memory ([0019] reads-out programs from the ROM 20B and executes the programs by using RAM 20C [0021] RAM 20C, temporarily stores program and data), and
at a time when each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines is activated, read out the data of the virtual machine from the volatile memory ([0037] determine, VM activation determination section, activate, processing executed in the order, VMs 110 ).
Onda doesn’t specifically teach at a time when the managing virtual machine is activated, read out the respective data of the plurality of virtual machines; at a time when each virtual machine is activated, read out the data of the virtual machine from the volatile memory.
Shimizu, however, teaches at a time when managing VM is activated (the CPU-A 301 loads the BIOS from the ROM-A 302 to the RAM-A 303, and initializes the CPU-A 301; the OS (OS-A) i.e. similar to VM executed by the CPU-A 301 is loaded from the HDD 307 into the RAM-A 303 and the execution is started [5. Flow of processing at the time of startup of the image forming apparatus 100]), read out the data of the plurality of virtual machine from non-volatile to volatile memory (the OS (OS-A) executed by the CPU-A (301) is loaded from the HDD 307 into the RAM-A (303) and the execution is started. At the same time, the CPU-A (301) loads the OS (OS-B) executed by the CPU-B (308) in the HDD 307 into the RAM-A (303) controller control unit 210, the CPU-A 301 loads both Oss into the RAM-A 303 in a batch; in an information processing apparatus having a plurality of CPUs and OSs, one CPU loads a plurality of OSs from the HDD into one RAM at a time [5. Flow of processing at the time of startup of the image forming apparatus 100]);
at a time when each virtual machine is activated, read out the data of the virtual machine from the volatile memory ( CPU-B (308) executes the OS (OS-B) on the RAM-B i.e. reading out from RAM (310), in step S509, the CPU-A (301) loads / executes the application program (APP-A) in the HDD (307); CPU-B (308) loads / executes the application program (APP-B) in the HDD (307) [5. Flow of processing at the time of startup of the image forming apparatus 100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Onda with the teachings of Shimizu of loading of the plurality of Oss from ROM into RAM at a time by CPU, and executing the OS-B from the RAM to improve efficiency and allow at a time when the managing virtual machine is activated, read out the respective data of the plurality of virtual machines; at a time when each virtual machine is activated, read out the data of the virtual machine from the volatile memory to the method of Onda as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of loading multiple Oss from the ROM to the RAM at the same time and executing the second OS from the RAM as taught by Shimizu to the method of running plurality of virtual machines to yield expected results and improved efficiency.
As per claim 3, Onda teaches wherein the managing virtual machine is activated first among the plurality of virtual machines ([0083] activates the VM 120 for control immediately after boosting the hypervisor [0084] instructing, from the VM control section 260 to the VM structuring section 250, to activate and end the respective VMs 110 (the VM 110A through the VM 110D) ).
Claim 4 recites a vehicle comprising the information processing device of claim 1 (Onda[0005]). Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 5 recites an information processing method in which a computer performs processing, the computer including limitations similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 6 recites a non-transitory recording medium on which is recorded a program executable by a computer to perform processing, the computer including limitations similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONDA in view of Shimizu, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Criswell et al. (US 2015/0074340 A1, hereafter Criswell).
As per claim 2, Onda teaches wherein the managing virtual machine reads out the data of the virtual machines from the non-volatile memory and stores the data in the volatile memory, in an order corresponding to preset priority levels of the respective virtual machines ([0019] reads-out programs from the ROM 20B and executes the programs by using RAM 20C [0021] RAM 20C, temporarily stores program and data [0028] priority level of the VMs ).
Shimizu teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the managing virtual machine reads out data of the virtual machines in an order corresponding to the priority of the VM ( the CPU-A (301) loads both OSs into the RAM-A (303) in a batch [5. Flow of processing at the time of startup of the image forming apparatus 100]).
Onda and Shimizu, in combination, do not specifically teach reading out data in an order corresponding to the priority of the VM.
Criswell, however, teaches reading out data in an order corresponding to the priority of the VM ([0022] cache policy, data, more frequently accessed may be prioritized over data that is less frequently accessed i.e. data with different priorities [0047] determining whether to transfer the data from the HDD to the cache based on cache policy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Onda and Shimizu with the teachings of Chriswell of transfer of data from the HDD to the cache based on the cache policy determined on priority of data to improve efficiency and allow a reading out data in an order corresponding to the priority of the VM to the method of Onda and Shimizu as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of transferring data from hard disk to the cache based on the cache policy determined based on the data priority as taught by Criswell to the method of running plurality of virtual machines as taught by Onda and Shimizu to yield expected results and improved efficiency.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights