DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 05/25/2020, Applicant, on 08/21/2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11-12 are currently amended.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Present claim 1 is broad in a sense that does not show that the claimed steps are performed by a machine. The claimed steps of determining a type of a timer used by a physical machine before a virtual machine starts; determining a first time and a first deadline of the virtual machine which are before the virtual machine starts; in a case where the timer used by the physical machine is a first-type timer, adjusting a time of the first-type timer to a second time corresponding to the first time and adjusting a deadline of the first-type timer to a second deadline corresponding to the first deadline to obtain an adjusted first-type timer; and configuring the adjusted first-type timer as a timer of the virtual machine, wherein the virtual machine is configured to access relevant register(s) of the adjusted first-type timer can be performed manually by a skilled in the art. The limitation “the virtual machine is configured to access relevant register(s)” emphasis added, does not mean, with BRI, the VM access relevant register. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. In addition, the present claims do not reflect Applicant’s arguments at the end of page 8. The present claims do not positively recite any control of a machine.
Further, the present claims as amended do not include any additional elements to be considered by the Examiner. As a result, there is no additional elements in the present claims to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner submits that “a VM is configured to access” does not necessarily mean the VM actually access…
Applicant’s arguments regarding VM software timer are not persuasive simply because the present claims with BRI do not exclude software timer. The present claims do not recite configuring a timer of a physical machine. The present claims describe configuring a timer of a virtual machine that runs on a physical machine and not changing a timer on a physical machine as argued by Applicant.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 in the present office action.
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 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of adjusting timer on a virtual machine.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A timer processing method, comprising: determining a type of a timer used by a physical machine before a virtual machine starts, wherein the virtual machine runs on the physical machine; determining a first time and a first deadline of the virtual machine which are before the virtual machine starts; in a case where the timer used by the physical machine is a first-type timer, adjusting a time of the first-type timer to a second time corresponding to the first time and adjusting a deadline of the first-type timer to a second deadline corresponding to the first deadline to obtain an adjusted first-type timer; and configuring the adjusted first-type timer as a timer of the virtual machine, wherein the virtual machine is configured to access relevant register(s) of the adjusted first-type timer”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because a virtual machine's timer can be manually adjusted, but it requires disabling the default time synchronization with the host machine. Virtualization software like VMware, VirtualBox, and Hyper-V keep the guest VM's clock in sync with the host's system time by default. A user must disable this automatic feature before the user can manually set a different time within the guest operating system. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 12 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-9 and 15-23 recite Mental Process because a virtual machine's timer can be manually adjusted. As a result, claims 2-9 and 15-23 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 12 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory device for storing one or more programs” and claim 12 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 12 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-9 and 15-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 12. As a result, claims 2-9 and 15-23 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 12 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory device for storing one or more programs” and claim 12 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 and 12 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-9 and 15-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 12. As a result, claims 2-9 and 15-23 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 non-obviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Mann (US 7475002 B1) in view of WANG, Qian-qian (CN 112148417 A) hereinafter Wang
Regarding claim 1. Mann teaches A timer processing method, comprising: [Mann, claim 1, Mann teaches “A method for emulating a plurality of virtual timers in a virtual computer system operating on a physical computer,”]
Mann does not specifically teach, however; Wang teaches determining a type of a timer used by a physical machine before a virtual machine starts, wherein the virtual machine runs on the physical machine; [Wang, paragraph starting with “Said computer readable medium can be contained in said device…”, Wang teaches “in response to detecting the starting of the virtual machine, determining the first type timer as the timer used by the virtual machine; determining a first time in a timer used by the physical machine; adjusting the first time so that the virtual machine uses the first type timer to trigger the time interruption” wherein adjusting a VM timer based on timer type]
Mann teaches A virtual computer system includes multiple timer emulators for emulating multiple virtual timers in a virtual machine (VM) and Wang teaches adjusting the first time so that the virtual machine uses the first type timer to trigger the time interruption. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing timer change in a VM. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine emulating multiple virtual timers in a virtual machine (VM) of Mann with determining a type of a timer used by a physical machine of Wang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing time synchronization between a virtual machine and a hosting machine.
Further, Mann teaches determining a first time and a first deadline of the virtual machine which are before the virtual machine starts; in a case where the timer used by the physical machine is a first-type timer, adjusting a time of the first-type timer to a second time corresponding to the first time and adjusting a deadline of the first-type timer to a second deadline corresponding to the first deadline to obtain an adjusted first-type timer; and configuring the adjusted first-type timer as a timer of the virtual machine [Mann, claim 1, Mann teaches “receiving programming information from the guest software for programming a second virtual timer; determining when the first virtual timer is set to generate timer events according to the real time, based on the programming information received from the guest software; determining when the second virtual timer is set to generate timer events according to the real time, based on the programming information received from the guest software; wherein the generation of timer events falls behind the real time, so that a first plurality of timer events, including one or more timer events of the first virtual timer and one or more timer events of the second virtual timer, are set to have already occurred according to the real time, but the first plurality of timer events have not yet occurred in the virtual computer system; and generating the first plurality of timer events in the same combined sequence as the timer events are set to occur according to the real time, wherein a catch-up mode is used when the generation of timer events in the virtual computer system is behind the real time, wherein a normal mode is used when the generation of timer events in the virtual computer system is caught up to the real time” wherein adjusting the time of a virtual machine to the time of a physical machine (real time)] wherein the virtual machine is configured to access relevant register(s) of the adjusted first-type timer [Mann, claim 1, Mann teaches “There must also be some way for the VM to access hardware devices, albeit in a manner transparent to the VM itself. One solution would of course be to include in the VMM all the required drivers and functionality normally found in the host OS 230 to accomplish I/O tasks” wherein enabling the VM for direct access to hardware components]
Regarding claim 4. Mann in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Mann teaches the timer processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: in a case where the timer used by the physical machine before the virtual machine starts is a third-type timer, no adjustment is performed on a current time and a deadline of the third- type timer of the physical machine [Mann, claim 1, Mann teaches “the generation of timer events falls behind the real time, so that a first plurality of timer events, including one or more timer events of the first virtual timer and one or more timer events of the second virtual timer, are set to have already occurred according to the real time, but the first plurality of timer events have not yet occurred in the virtual computer system” wherein Mann teaches changing a timer of a VM based on a condition of difference between an event time and a real time has been satisfied, otherwise the virtual timer does not need to be changed].
Regarding claim 7. Mann in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Mann teaches further comprising: triggering a second time interrupt to terminate the adjusted first-type timer in response to a detection that a time of the adjusted first-type timer in the virtual machine reaches the second deadline [Mann, column 6 lines 47-54, Mann teaches “One common use for a timer is to keep track of the time of day or to keep track of how much time has elapsed since some point in time. For such a task, the timer may be set up as a periodic timer; generating timer interrupts at a constant frequency. The interrupts generated by the timer may be counted to keep track of the time with a resolution that is equal to the period of the timer. To further refine the time-keeping function” wherein triggering a second time interrupt].
Regarding claim 9. Mann in view of Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Mann teaches wherein the configuring the adjusted first-type timer as the timer of the virtual machine comprises: instructing the virtual machine to access relevant register(s) of the adjusted first-type timer [Mann, column 13 lines 55-58, Mann teaches “The timer emulators 460 should generally retrieve a current apparent time whenever the guest software attempts to read or write a register for the respective virtual timers 360” wherein instructing the virtual machine to access relevant register(s) of the adjusted first-type timer].
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 11 is directed to an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory device which is anticipated by Mann claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 12 is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is anticipated by Mann claim 9.
Regarding claims 17, 20, and 22, claims 17, 20, and 22 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 4, 7, and 9, respectively; therefore, claims 17, 20, and 22 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 4, 7, and 9, respectively. Claims 4, 7, and 9 are method claims while claims 17, 20, and 22 are directed to an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory device which is anticipated by Mann claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 02/02/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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 of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623