DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-16 and 18-23 are pending in this 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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 12-15, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Schaik et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0164718) [hereinafter “van Schaik”] in view of Kondon (US PGPUB No. 2017/0177254).
As per claim 1, van Schaik teaches a method for permission synchronization, comprising: obtaining a set of first permission information to be synchronized from a second operating system running on a first operating system environment ([0002], operating systems existing under a hypervisor see Abstract – Examiner note: the first operating system can be a virtual machine monitor or a hypervisor see specification of instant application at [0020]); transmitting the set of first permission information to be synchronized to a shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system ([0033], guest operating system memory map access information stored in global shared region of memory); and the first operating system reading permission information from the shared memory area ([0033], accessing memory map information in a global shared region of memory).
van Schaik does not explicitly teach wherein permission information describes a permission related to an access capability associated with system resources and comprises information of a permission name, information of a permission attribute, and a permission value; and setting a first monitoring process in the second operating system, wherein the first monitoring process is configured to monitor the shared memory area; and if the permission information stored in the shared memory area changes, obtaining a set of second permission information to be synchronized from the second operating system, transmitting the set of second permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of second permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system. Kondon teaches wherein permission information describes a permission related to an access capability associated with system resources and comprises information of a permission name, information of a permission attribute, and a permission value ([0068], read/write permission for a particular process ID from a particular OS is set as allowed or disallowed see [0047] and [0083]-[0084]); setting a first monitoring process in the second operating system, wherein the first monitoring process is configured to monitor the shared memory area ([0117], monitoring access request to shared memory) and; and if the permission information stored in the shared memory area changes ([0118], OS adding new application at home node with permissions to a particular segment A), obtaining a set of second permission information to be synchronized from the second operating system ([0119], obtaining by the home node permission information from remote node including application that will access shared memory and recording information), transmitting the set of second permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system see id. and storing the set of second permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system ([0121]-[0122], management table tracks various applications and nodes that have permission to read or write see also [0117]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine van Schaik with the teachings of Kondon, wherein permission information describes a permission related to an access capability associated with system resources and comprises information of a permission name, information of a permission attribute, and a permission value; and setting a first monitoring process in the second operating system, wherein the first monitoring process is configured to monitor the shared memory area; and if the permission information stored in the shared memory area changes, obtaining a set of second permission information to be synchronized from the second operating system, transmitting the set of second permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of second permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system, to ensure that permissions are properly updated so that underlying applications can properly function without causing delays are error.
As per claim 2, the combination of van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the set of first permission information to be synchronized to a shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system comprises: transmitting, by file memory mapping, the set of first permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system (van Schaik; [0033], guest operating system memory map information transmitted and stored in a global shared region of memory).
As per claim 5, the combination van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 1, further comprising: setting a second monitoring process in the first operating system (Kondon; [0068], read/write permission for a particular process ID from a particular OS is set as allowed or disallowed see [0047] and [0083]-[0084]); and if the permission information stored in the shared memory area changes (Kondon; [0118], OS adding new application at home node with permissions to a particular segment A), obtaining a set of second permission information to be synchronized from the second operating system (Kondon; [0119], obtaining by the home node permission information from remote node including application that will access shared memory and recording information), transmitting the set of second permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system see id. and storing the set of second permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system (Kondon; [0121]-[0122], management table tracks various applications and nodes that have permission to read or write see also [0117]).
As per claim 6, the combination of van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 1, after transmitting the set of first permission information to be synchronized to a shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system, the method further comprising: writing the set of first permission information into a storage device (van Schaik; [0033], guest operating system memory map access information stored in global shared region of memory – a storage device connected to the main unit to store process information and data which would include said map access information).
As per claim 8, the combination of van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 4 , after obtaining a set of second permission information to be synchronized from the second operating system, transmitting the set of second permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of second permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system, the method further comprising: writing the set of second permission information into the storage device (van Schaik; [0033], guest operating system memory map access information stored in global shared region of memory – a storage device connected to the main unit to store process information and data which would include said map access information).
As per claim 12, the combination of van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 1, wherein the first operating system comprises a plurality of desktop operating systems (van Schaik; [0027], operating systems of virtual machines can be a Linux operating system, i.e. desktop).
As per claim 13, the combination of van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 1, wherein data store in the shared memory area of the first operating system is accessed by two or more processes (van Schaik; Abstract, shared memory access by multiple processes of various operating systems and underlying hypervisor, i.e. VMM).
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 22, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 12. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 23, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Schaik and Kondon in further view of Li et al. (CN-112905304-A) [hereinafter “Li”].
As per claim 3, the combination of van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 1.
The combination of van Schaik and Kondon does not explicitly teach establishing a socket connection between the first operating system and the second operating system; and transmitting, by the socket connection, the set of first permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system. Li teaches establishing a socket connection between the first operating system and the second operating system (Page 6, para. 7-9, establishing a virtual socket connection – each VM has its own operating system see Page 15, para. 1); and transmitting, by the socket connection, the set of first permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system (Page 6, para. 7-9, establishing a virtual socket connection for the purpose of data synchronization between two virtual machines).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine van Schaik and Kondon with the teachings of Li, establishing a socket connection between the first operating system and the second operating system; and transmitting, by the socket connection, the set of first permission information to be synchronized to the shared memory area of the first operating system and storing the set of first permission information to be synchronized in the shared memory area of the first operating system, to implement a well-known connection method between two virtual machines for ease of use and efficiency.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Schaik and Kondon in view of Shimmitsu et al. (US PGPUB No. 2013/0262649) [hereinafter “Shimmitsu”].
As per claim 7, the combination van Schaik and Kondon teaches the method for permission synchronization of claim 6, as well as first permission information ([0033], guest operating system memory map access information stored in global shared region of memory).
The combination van Schaik and Kondon does not explicitly teach inspecting predetermined first flag information, wherein the first flag information corresponds to data to be transferred; if the first flag information is a first state value, writing the data to be transferred into the storage device in real time; and if the flag information is a second state value, after a selected delay, writing the data to be transferred into the storage device. Shimmitsu teaches inspecting predetermined first flag information, wherein the first flag information corresponds to data to be transferred ([0090]-[0092], delay flag used to control the transfer of data from VM to storage device see Abstract); if the first flag information is a first state value, writing the data to be transferred into the storage device in real time ([0091], delay flag set off if response time is below a threshold, i.e. data transferred immediately via I/O request to storage device); and if the flag information is a second state value, after a selected delay, writing the data to be transferred into the storage device ([0092], if delay flag is set on, active controller selects to transfer I/O request to a queue controller for a selected delay corresponding to low, middle or high levels).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine van Schaik and Kondon with the teachings of Shimmitsu, inspecting predetermined first flag information, wherein the first flag information corresponds to data to be transferred; if the first flag information is a first state value, writing the data to be transferred into the storage device in real time; and if the flag information is a second state value, after a selected delay, writing the data to be transferred into the storage device, to ensure that storage of virtual machine data adheres to specified service level agreements and policies.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-16 and 18-23 have been fully considered. In light of the new amendments, Examiner has introduced and cited to a new prior art reference, Kondon, to teach the new amendments.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schuba et al. (US PGPUB No. 2009/0313446), Bond et al. (US PGPUB No. 2012/0296626), Park et al. (WO-2013137616-A1), Sundaravarathan et al. ("Controlled Shared Memory (COSM) Isolation: Design and Testbed Evaluation," in IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 77893-77917, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3564391) and Gordon et al. ("Covirt: Lightweight Fault Isolation and Resource Protection for Co-Kernels," 2021 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), Portland, OR, USA, 2021, pp. 310-319, doi: 10.1109/IPDPS49936.2021.00039) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including shared memory used to share and transfer data between hypervisors, virtual machines and their processes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 January 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights