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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
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.
As to claim 16, it recites " A computer execution program for causing a vehicle-mounted computer" The claim could reasonably be interpreted as software per se. Claims that only recites software per se (descriptive material covered in MPEP 2106.01), constitute as non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-16 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the terms ”the virtual device” and “the other cores” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In claim 1, one sees “if one of the cores is not operating, specifies the core that is a migration destination of the virtual device that was operating on the one core, based on a change amount of a register value of the physical device or processing time needed for changing a register value of the physical device when the virtual device is migrated to the other cores”.
Here we see two distinct steps: one is migration of virtual devices from core to another, the other is minimization of change in configuration registers (combined to make table of Fig 5 linking mapping virtual and physical devices).
The examiner does not see any linkage between the two steps. To be exact “why does migration of cores necessitate this change in mapping between virtual and physical devices” Fig 3 shows CPUs with different cores. These are part of Block 111 which is the CPU itself. We also see three physical devices (Blocks 114a, 114b and 114c). In the specification, the examiner cannot find any linkage between migration of virtual devices among cores and change in relationship between physical and virtual devices (It would be a change in column and rows of the table in Fig 5).
Therefore, for purposes of examination, each process will be taken up separately.
With respect to minimization of change of register values (mapping between virtual and physical devices), one sees this culminating in Fig 5 which combines registers to make a table. In Fig 5 we see these registers becoming columns in a table showing mapping between virtual and physical devices. The minimal change amount of the table in Fig 5 would mean virtual and physical devices remaining together as much as possible (fewer column and row changes). This interpretation is used throughout the examination process.
Claims 15 and 16 have the same problem and are rejected for the same reasons.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for being dependent upon one of the claims above.
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 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 1-7,11,12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugumar (US 2008/0163239 A1) in view of Dugar (US 10,534,652 B1) in further view of Do (US 2013/0125113 A1).
As per claim 1, Sugumar teaches A vehicle-mounted computer comprising a physical resource including a processor with three or more cores (Sugumar [0039] Referring still to FIGS. 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D: The reasons or conditions under which a system 200 or apparatus 299 may migrate a VM 220-221 are also varied. A system may migrate a VM 220-221 to balance execution loads amongst multiple partitions 205-206 or amongst multiple processor cores 210-212 in a single partition or in multiple partitions 205-206)
wherein the processor; (Sugumar Fig 2 Block 212 Processor)
determines whether or not the plurality of cores are operating, if one of the cores is not operating, specifies the core that is a migration destination of the virtual device that was operating on the one core, (Sugumar [0053] select a processor core 210-212 or partition 205-206 that is most overloaded (step 420), and determines if any VMs 221 are able to migrate off (step 426) based by comparing the minimum required loads of potential VMs to migrate 220-221 against a processor core 210-212 or partition's 205-206 maximum available load (MAL) as in step 424.)
The examiner will interpret this “operating” and “not operating” to be whether this core is operating in a “normal” or “abnormal” way based on what is disclosed in the specification (0127] ….determines whether or not the first to third cores 110a, 110b, and 110c are abnormal (step S111). If it is determined that none of the first to third cores 110a, 110b, and 110c are abnormal (step S111: NO), that is, if all of the first to third cores 110a, 110b, and 110c are operating normally, the processor 10 ends the processing)
The examiner believes this concept of “overloaded” core is consistent with “abnormal core” (not operating) as the place from which virtual device (virtual machine) needs to be migrated ([0135] FIGS. 10A and 10B are explanatory diagrams showing a method for migrating a virtual device from an abnormal core to a normal core)
migrates the virtual device that was operating on the one core to the specified core that is the migration destination.(Sugumar [0017] The hashed arrow connecting migrating VM 221 in processor cores 211 and 212 is intended to depict a VM 221 migrating between processor cores 211 and 212, within partition 206)
Sugumar does not teach a physical device having a register, the vehicle-mounted computer generating three or more virtual devices by allocating the physical resource through time-division and based on a change amount of a register value of the physical device or processing time needed for changing a register value of the physical device when the virtual device is migrated to the other cores.
However, Dugar teaches a physical device having a register, the vehicle-mounted computer generating three or more virtual devices by allocating the physical resource through time-division (Dugar Fig 2 Blocks 256 and 258 (each has more than three entries) and [col 8, lines 30-32] FIG. 6A. The data structure is populated such that element Mu corresponds to the number of virtual nodes (i.e., 1000) and [col 7, lines 52-61] In one embodiment, reconfiguration plan module 344 identifies an assignment mapping between existing virtual node groups and new virtual node groups for the new configuration that will minimize how many virtual nodes are actually moved from one physical node to another. To determine this assignment mapping, reconfiguration plan module 344 may utilize group assignment data structure 374, stored in data store 370. Additional details of generating the reconfiguration plan are provided below with respect 60 to FIGS. 5-6G)
based on a change amount of a register value of the physical device or processing time needed for changing a register value of the physical device when the virtual device is migrated to the other cores, (Dugar [col 1, lines 38-41] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method of virtual node migration during reconfiguration of a computing cluster, according to an embodiment [col 4, lines 3-10] In one embodiment, the cluster manager attempts to assign each of the current virtual node groups 100, 110, 120 to one of the new virtual node groups 130, 140, 150, 160. By maximizing the number of virtual nodes that are not moved as part of the reconfiguration, the cluster manager can minimize the number of virtual nodes that are moved between physical nodes. See Fig 5 Block 500 (minimize movements) see also steps 505-545 which shows a how a data structure (in this case matrix) is used to minimize the number of movements).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dugar with the system of Sugumar to minimize how many virtual nodes are actually moved from one physical node to another. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Dugar into the system of Sugumar for the purpose of minimizing virtual node movements during reconfiguration (Dugar col 1, lines 42-44)
The examiner believes this is similar with what is disclosed in the specification (Figs 4 and Fig 5). In Fig 5 we see these registers becoming columns in a table showing mapping between virtual and physical devices. The minimal change amount of the table in Fig 5 would mean virtual and physical devices remaining together as much as possible (fewer column and row changes). This is what Dugar teaches. The examiner does not see any other explanation in the specification. The issue of discontinuity between moving virtual devices between cores and changes to the table shown in Fig 5 is outlined as part of the 112 rejection and can be addressed in response to this office action.
Dugar teaches this mapping between virtual and physical devices and minimization of movement while migrating. However it does not teach this mapping within a vehicle environment .
Sugumar and Dugar therefore do not teach A vehicle-mounted computer, the vehicle-mounted computer generating three or more virtual devices by allocating the physical resource through time-division.
However, Do teaches A vehicle-mounted computer, the vehicle-mounted computer generating three or more virtual devices by allocating the physical resource through time-division (Do [0025] In the example method of FIG. 2, pairing (208) the virtual device (214) in the virtual environment (210) with the physical device (216) in the physical environment (212) may be carried out by associating the virtual device (214) and physical device (216) in a data structure such as a device pairing table. Table 1 shows car radio mapped to smart phone)
Do teaches concepts very similar to Dugar but within a car environment. The concept of data structure (table) mapping physical to virtual devices is identical to Dugar (matrix) but just uses car radio.
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Do with the system of Sugumar and Dugar to use virtual and physical devices in a automobile environment. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Do into the system of Sugumar and Dugar for the purpose of pairing physical devices to virtual devices to create an immersive environment. (Do paragraph 02)
As per claim 2, Dugar teaches wherein the processor specifies, as the core that is the migration destination, the core with the smallest change amount of the register value of the physical device when the virtual device that was operating on the one core is migrated to the other cores. (Dugar [col 1, lines 38-41] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method of virtual node migration during reconfiguration of a computing cluster, according to an embodiment [col 4, lines 3-10] In one embodiment, the cluster manager attempts to assign each of the current virtual node groups 100, 110, 120 to one of the new virtual node groups 130, 140, 150, 160. By maximizing the number of virtual nodes that are not moved as part of the reconfiguration, the cluster manager can minimize the number of virtual nodes that are moved between physical nodes. See Fig 5 Block 500 (minimize movements) see also steps 505-545 which shows a how a data structure (in this case matrix) is used to minimize the number of movements).
As per claim 3, Dugar teaches wherein the processor specifies, as the core that is the migration destination, the core with the smallest processing time needed for changing the register value of the physical device when the virtual device that was operating on the one core is migrated to the other cores. (Dugar [col 1, lines 38-41] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method of virtual node migration during reconfiguration of a computing cluster, according to an embodiment [col 4, lines 3-10] In one embodiment, the cluster manager attempts to assign each of the current virtual node groups 100, 110, 120 to one of the new virtual node groups 130, 140, 150, 160. By maximizing the number of virtual nodes that are not moved as part of the reconfiguration, the cluster manager can minimize the number of virtual nodes that are moved between physical nodes. See Fig 5 Block 500 (minimize movements) see also steps 505-545 which shows a how a data structure (in this case matrix) is used to minimize the number of movements).
The examiner will equate minimal change in Dugar with smallest processing time in that minimal among of changes are made in mapping physical to virtual devices.
As per claim 5, Sugumar teaches wherein the processor specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device that was operating on the one core, based on information indicating the physical device to be used by the virtual device to be executed last among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores, and device configuration information including a register value to be set in the physical device that is to be used. (Sugumar [claim 5] migrate the virtual machine based on a categorization attribute, in addition to the first and second load status matching the pre-determined criteria, and wherein the categorization attribute is selected from a group of categorization attributes consisting of access rights, priority, criticality, application type, operating system type, user type, VM processor core temperature, and requestor).
The concept of “last among the virtual devices” is being interpreted to mean the virtual device having the least priority. There is nothing in the specification that sheds any further light on this.
As per claim 6, Sugumar teaches wherein the plurality of virtual devices have priority levels for executing processing, and the processor specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device, based on the change amount from the register value of the physical device to be used by the virtual device that is to be executed last and has a higher priority level than the virtual device that was operating on the one core, among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores. (Sugumar [claim 5] migrate the virtual machine based on a categorization attribute, in addition to the first and second load status matching the pre-determined criteria, and wherein the categorization attribute is selected from a group of categorization attributes consisting of access rights, priority, criticality, application type, operating system type, user type, VM processor core temperature, and requestor).
As per claim 7, Sugumar teaches wherein the plurality of virtual devices have priority levels for executing processing, and the processor specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device, based on the processing time needed for changing the register value of the physical device to be used by the virtual device that is to be executed last and has a higher priority level than the virtual device that was operating on the one core, among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores. (Sugumar [claim 5] migrate the virtual machine based on a categorization attribute, in addition to the first and second load status matching the pre-determined criteria, and wherein the categorization attribute is selected from a group of categorization attributes consisting of access rights, priority, criticality, application type, operating system type, user type, VM processor core temperature, and requestor).
As per claim 11, Sugumar teaches wherein the plurality of virtual devices have priority levels for executing processing, and if there are a plurality of the virtual devices that were operating on the one core, the processor preferentially migrates the virtual device with a high priority level among the plurality of virtual devices that were operating on the one core to the other cores. (Sugumar [claim 5] migrate the virtual machine based on a categorization attribute, in addition to the first and second load status matching the pre-determined criteria, and wherein the categorization attribute is selected from a group of categorization attributes consisting of access rights, priority, criticality, application type, operating system type, user type, VM processor core temperature, and requestor).
As per claim 12, Dugar teaches wherein if there are a plurality of the virtual devices that were operating on the one core, the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device is specified based on the total change amount of the register value of the physical device when migrating to the other cores. (Dugar [col 7, lines 36-47] At block 410, method 400 receives an indication of one or more changes to the virtual node groups including a new configuration for the computing cluster. In one embodiment, the new configuration defines a plurality of new virtual node groups that is different than the current virtual node groups. In one embodiment, cluster configuration manager 342 receives the new configuration information as part of a request to reconfigure the computing cluster. The new configuration may include one or more changes to the existing virtual node groups [change amount] including the addition or removal of one or more groups and/or the rebalancing of virtual nodes among those groups.).
As to claim 4, it is rejected based on the same reason as claim 2.
As to claims 15 and 16, they are rejected based on the same reason as claim 1.
With respect to claim 15 (method claim), the claim states “determining whether or not the plurality of cores are operating, specifying, if one of the cores is not operating, the core that is a migration destination of the virtual device that was operating on the one core”.
This is a conditional statement and if all the cores are operating, the rest of the claim does not apply. The examiner has mapped these based on the assumption that the cores are not operating properly. In Schulhauser (P. T.A.B., No. 2013-007847, 2016.), the patent trial and appeals board (PTAB) found that the examiner need only show that one of the two "paths" of the method claim is anticipated or obvious over the prior art because the method claims covered situations where the prerequisite condition for certain steps did not occur in a particular scenario.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugumar (US 2008/0163239 A1) in view of Dugar (US 10,534,652 B1) in further view of Do (US 2013/0125113 A1) and Duluk (US 2021/0073035 A1).
As per claim 8, Sugumar and Dugar and Do do not teach wherein the priority level is determined based on an ASIL and QM of a functional safety standard for an automobile.
However, Duluk teaches wherein the priority level is determined based on an ASIL and QM of a functional safety standard for an automobile. (Duluk [0235] As described herein, a particular VM may change the number of SMC engines 700 upon which the VM executes over time. In one particular example, VM A includes various tasks associated with a self-driving vehicle. Certain tasks of the self-driving vehicle are more critical than other tasks. For example, tasks associated with self-driving, such as detecting traffic lights and avoiding crashes, would be considered more critical than tasks associated with the vehicle's entertainment system. These more critical tasks may be subject to certain regulatory or industry standards. One such standard assigns a classification level known as an automotive safety integrity level (ASIL). ASIL includes four levels, referred to as ASIL-A, ASIL-B, ASIL-C, and ASIL-D, in order of increasing integrity levels. Tasks such as detecting traffic lights and avoiding crashes would be classified as ASIL-D. Less critical tasks may be classified at lower ASIL levels. Tasks that have no safety relevance, such as tasks associated with the vehicle's entertainment system, may be classified as QM, indicating that only standard quality management practices are applicable).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Duluk with the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do to use functional or safety standards. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Duluk into the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do for the purpose of using multiple CPU processes that can utilize PPU resources efficiently via simultaneously executing multiple different contexts. (Duluk paragraph 09)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugumar (US 2008/0163239 A1) in view of Dugar (US 10,534,652 B1) in further view of Do (US 2013/0125113 A1) and Schaik (US 2014/0164662 A1).
As per claim 9, Sugumar and Dugar and Do do not teach wherein the processor causes at least one virtual device of the plurality of virtual devices to operate periodically at a predetermined period and the other virtual devices to operate non-periodically, and, based on the change amount of the register value of the physical device to be used by the virtual device that operates periodically at a predetermined period among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores, specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device
However, Schaik teaches wherein the processor causes at least one virtual device of the plurality of virtual devices to operate periodically at a predetermined period and the other virtual devices to operate non-periodically, and, based on the change amount of the register value of the physical device to be used by the virtual device that operates periodically at a predetermined period among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores, specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device. (Schalk [0037] More specifically, the example process 600 begins when a hypervisor 400 assigns a base priority to each virtualized entity (block 602). For example, the hypervisor 400 may assign a higher priority to real-time virtual machines [periodic] than non-real-time virtual machines [non-periodic]. The hypervisor 400 then schedules the virtualized entities to execute on physical processor(s) based on the current priority associated with each virtualized entity (block 604). For example, the hypervisor 400 may schedule a real-time virtual machine of a higher priority in preference to a non-real-time virtual machine with a lower priority)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schalk with the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do to give higher priority to periodic virtual machines. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Schalk into the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do for the purpose of interleaving priorities of a plurality of virtual processors. (Schaik paragraph 01)
As per claim 10, Sugumar and Dugar and Do do not teach wherein the processor causes at least one virtual device of the plurality of virtual devices to operate periodically at a predetermined period and the other virtual devices to operate non-periodically, and, based on the processing time needed for changing the register value of the physical device to be used by the virtual device that operates periodically at a predetermined period among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores, specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device.
However, Schaik teaches wherein the processor causes at least one virtual device of the plurality of virtual devices to operate periodically at a predetermined period and the other virtual devices to operate non-periodically, and, based on the processing time needed for changing the register value of the physical device to be used by the virtual device that operates periodically at a predetermined period among the virtual devices that are to operate on the other cores, specifies the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device. (Schalk [0037] More specifically, the example process 600 begins when a hypervisor 400 assigns a base priority to each virtualized entity (block 602). For example, the hypervisor 400 may assign a higher priority to real-time virtual machines [periodic] than non-real-time virtual machines [non-periodic]. The hypervisor 400 then schedules the virtualized entities to execute on physical processor(s) based on the current priority associated with each virtualized entity (block 604). For example, the hypervisor 400 may schedule a real-time virtual machine of a higher priority in preference to a non-real-time virtual machine with a lower priority)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schalk with the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do to give higher priority to periodic virtual machines. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Schalk into the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do for the purpose of interleaving priorities of a plurality of virtual processors. (Schaik paragraph 01)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugumar (US 2008/0163239 A1) in view of Dugar (US 10,534,652 B1) in further view of Do (US 2013/0125113 A1) and Lee (US 2018/0295301 A1).
As per claim 13, Sugumar and Dugar and Do do not teach wherein if there are a plurality of the virtual devices that were operating on the one core, the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device is specified based on the total processing time needed for changing the register value of the physical device when migrating to the other cores.
However, Lee teaches wherein if there are a plurality of the virtual devices that were operating on the one core, the core that is the migration destination of the virtual device is specified based on the total processing time needed for changing the register value of the physical device when migrating to the other cores. (Lee [0040] calculator 210 may substitute the changed row number into the row processing time calculation formula to calculate the row processing time RPT)
This would be changing a row (register) of table shown in Fig 5 of the specification.
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee with the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do to calculate total processing time for changing the registers. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Lee into the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do for the purpose of adaptively adjusting an adjusted row processing time in response to receiving a digital zoom command. (Lee paragraph 09)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugumar (US 2008/0163239 A1) in view of Dugar (US 10,534,652 B1) in further view of Do (US 2013/0125113 A1) and Teppoeva (US 2021/0383206 A1).
As per claim 14, Sugumar and Dugar and Do do not teach wherein if the predetermined period is completed during execution of the virtual device that is to be migrated, the processor interrupts migration of the virtual device and issues an error notification.
However, Teppova teaches wherein if the predetermined period is completed during execution of the virtual device that is to be migrated, the processor interrupts migration of the virtual device and issues an error notification. (Teppova [0048] Virtual machine migration engine 254 may migrate one or more virtual machines and/or workloads that are being executed by a node (e.g., a server) that is predicted to have a hardware failure event within a threshold duration of time to one or more healthy servers).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine Teppova with the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do to time limit migration of virtual machines. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Teppova into the system of Sugumar and Dugar and Do for the purpose of migrating existing workloads to different server computing devices, freezing onboarding of new workloads to the server computing device that is predicted to experience a hardware failure event, and/or flagging the server computing device that is predicted to experience a hardware failure event. (Teppova paragraph 06)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200257554 A1 – discloses an existing schedule indicating time slots during which virtual-machines are to be migrated between physical-machines, acquires change information indicating a change of first time slots during which first virtual-machines are to be migrated, and generates constraint information including a group of constraints regarding the change information and second time slots during which second virtual-machines other than the first virtual-machines are to be migrated. The apparatus generates semi-constraint information items each generated by excluding, from the constraint information, an exclusion target constraint that is selected in turn from among the group of constraints, and generates, for each semi-constraint information item, a rescheduling result by rescheduling migrations of the virtual-machines. The apparatus outputs a first rescheduling result that is one of the generated rescheduling results which reduces a difference between a scheduled migration time indicated by the first rescheduling result and scheduled migration times of the second virtual-machines.
US 11126474 B1– discloses reducing the probability of spinlock and/or reducing the time that a virtual central processing unit (CPU) may hold a lock are provided. In one embodiment, a computer-implemented method includes determining that an executing virtual CPU is holding a lock for exclusive use of a resource, and scheduling the executing virtual CPU to run for up to a specified time period before de-scheduling the executing virtual CPU. In one embodiment, the executing virtual CPU holding the lock writes a value to a register to indicate that the executing virtual CPU is holding the lock.
US 20200379927 A1 – discloses an electronic device that includes a processor that executes a guest operating system, an input-output memory management unit (IOMMU), and a main memory that stores an IOMMU backing store. The IOMMU backing store includes a separate copy of a set of IOMMU memory-mapped input-output (MMIO) registers for each guest operating system in a set of supported guest operating systems. The IOMMU receives, from the guest operating system, a communication that accesses data in a given IOMMU MMIO register. The IOMMU then performs a corresponding access of the data in a copy of the given IOMMU MMIO register in the IOMMU backing store associated with the guest operating system.
US 20200326967 A1 – discloses an apparatus configured to perform steps comprising: executing, by a hypervisor, a first virtual machine comprising a first operating system; detecting a change in the state of the autonomous vehicle; revoking, by the hypervisor, in response to the change in the state of the autonomous vehicle, one or more resources associated with the execution of the first virtual machine; and executing, by the hypervisor, a second virtual machine comprising a second operating system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAN KAMRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3401. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached on (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.
/MEHRAN KAMRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196