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
1. The office acknowledges the receipt of the following and placed of record in the file: Amendment dated 5/19/25.
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishna (“Gopala”), U.S. Patent No. 9,069,607 and Havewala et al. (“Havewala”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0129666.
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 20, Gopala teaches a computer device, comprising:
a memory [col-14 lines: 6-23(data storage)]; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory [system CPU], configured to:
for an application package installed at an installation location (at user configuration repository) and registered to a first user having a first per-user location, create a second per-user location for a second user when registering the application package at the installation location to the second user [col-4 lines: 48-62(as “user configuration repository 140 configured to stream corresponding user configuration packages” for respective first user, second user etc.) and col-6 lines:1-15(generating individual user configuration package to “transmit the user configuration package … for storage by the user configuration repository”)];
receive, from a central location that is common to multiple users, a modified file among a plurality of files of the application package from the first user (as “any change deletions, or additions made by virtual application to the file system … recorded in sandbox” and then “generate a user configuration package based on collected changes” for configuration repository);
write the modified file into the second per-user location [col-5 line: 41 to col-6 line: 15 (when “transmit the user configuration package … for storage by the user configuration repository”)]; and
load, during execution of the application by the second user from the central location for the multiple users, the modified file from the second per-user location for the second user [col-6 lines: 34-45(“configuration packages 126.sub.1, 126.sub.2 corresponding to the requesting user ... are merged into the virtualized execution environment of the base virtual application. Asa result, users have all of their customizations in the virtual applications executing in their respective client systems 102', 104’ …” according to modification or change of files per user “customizations” for second user as described in col-3 lines: 6-35)]. Gopala is not clear about the first user per-location and second user per-location is separate from each other.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., separated per-user locations each associated a user in in a plurality of user environment for a storage), Havewala teaches a memory [Fig-(110)]; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory, configured to:
for an application package installed at an installation location [Para: 0003 (“application running in a container to access files stored on disk via normal file system calls”)] and registered to a first user having a first per-user location [container namespace 112(1) for an application running on container 102(1)], create a second per-user location for a second user when registering the application package at the installation location to the second user [Para: 0024(“each container has its own container namespace (e.g., a container volume), and thus, container 102(1) is associated with container namespace 112(1) and container 102(N) is associated with container namespace 112(N) … of a storage unit 110”) and 0026], wherein each of the first per-user location and the second per-user location is separate from each of a plurality of other per- user locations each associated with one other user among a plurality of users [Fig-1(container namespace 112(1) is separate from container namespace 112(N)];
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gopala’s teachings of an application package installed at an installation location and registered to a first user having a first per-user location, create a second per-user location for a second user when registering the application package at the installation location to the second user with Havewala’s teachings of first user per-location and second user per-location is separate from each other would allow Gopala to executing a process inside a container provided by virtual machines instead of using file system features associated with operating system kernel in order to reduce start-up time due to smaller storage of virtual machine [Havewala Para: 0002].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Gopala teaches wherein the second per-user location is separate from the first per-user location [Gopala, Fig-1B( user 1 configuration package 126(1) and user 2 configuration package(2) are separate), wherein the first per-user location is mutable for the first user and the second per-user location is mutable for the second user [Gopala, col-7 lines: 34-49(as user “deselect a particular application” from respective configuration)], wherein one or more files of the plurality of files of the application package that is stored outside the second per-user location is read-only for the second user col-6 lines: 16-33(“The user configurations repository 140 stores a different user configuration package for each application and for each user” suggests files that are outside of configuration are read only files)].
Havewala teaches creating by a filter driver a per user location for a user when installing an application package to an installation location [Para: 0055 (“When viewed from the application, however, this top layer appears to have a complete view of the entire file system state as if it existed locally. This view is an overlay of the top layer modifications and the individual source layers as shown in FIG. 8.” where top level modification implies to per user level) and 0058] and project, via one or more filter driver (file system filter 108) of an operating system [Para: 0023(“file system filter may be part of a file stack of file system 109” where “operating system 1028 includes a file system 109” as described para: 0110)], installed package files from the installation locations into the per user location [Para: 0060 (“in step 816, the merge component may, in response to the application request to access the file, merge the at least partial state of the file stored in the placeholder in the top layer of the file system with the remaining state of the file stored remotely in the one or
more source layers to present a single view of the file to the requesting application”)].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Gopala teaches wherein the one or more filter drivers include an isolation filter driver that makes a target directory appear in a source directory for each per-user location (user configuration(1) and user configuration(2) ), wherein changes to the source directory do not affect the target directory [Gopala, Fig-1B(changes in base application package does not affect the user configuration package because they are completely separate)]
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Gopala teaches wherein the one or more filter drivers include a virtual namespace filter driver that makes the second per-user location for the second user appear in the central location, wherein changes to the central location for the second user affect the second per-user location for the second user [Gopala, col-6 lines: 16-33(“configuration repository 140 stores a different user configuration package for each application and for each user ... user configuration 140 retrieves configuration package 126 sub 1 associated with user one” for a virtual application where the virtual application can include virtual driver with name space as described in col-3 lines: 36-64)].
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Gopala teaches wherein the application modifies one or more of the plurality of files for the application projected into the second per-user location when executed for the second user [Gopala, col-5 lines: 41-52 [col5 line: 41 to col-6 line: 15(sand box 132 “contains runtime modifications ... of application” and then “transmit the user configuration package ... for storage by the user configuration repository” or store the modified version to the user configuration)].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Gopala teaches wherein the application indicates to load one or more of the plurality of files for the application from: the installation location, the first per-user location [Fig-1B (application 130 loading from per user location 126)], the second per-user location, or a current location.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Gopala teaches wherein the modified file is received into the central location from the first per-user location using a file modification system [col-4 lines: 15- 26(server system 106 “having conventional components, such as a processor ...” can receive the transmitted user configuration package from per user location 126 for storage by the user configuration repository where the user configuration can be modified by user by “select or deselect a particular application” for the configuration as described in col-7 lines: 34-49)].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Gopala teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to reset the application for the second user by deleting the modified file in the second per-user location for the second user [col-3 lines: 6-35(as processor “customizations” of user configuration back to “default” state)].
4. Claims 8, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopala and Havewala as set forth above (hereinafter, (“Gopala-Havewala”) and Smith et al. (“Smith”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0076075.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Gopala-Havewala teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to utilize per-user mutable locations for at least the first user based on availability as set forth above [Havewala, para: 0056 and 0070]. Gopala-Havewala does not disclose expressly a manifest entry indicating availability of per-user mutable locations.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., reducing duplicated application data in per user application registry system), Smith teaches a manifest (112) is used in per-user location for an application package to an installation location [Para: 0021(manifest 112 stored in memory) and Fig-1].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gopala-Havewala’s teachings of create a per-user location for a first user when installing an application package to an installation location with Smith’s teachings of a manifest is used in per-user location for an application package to an installation location so that Gopala can read a manifest entry indicating availability of per-user mutable locations for the purpose of having readily available per-user location information in order to reduce latency due to search for available per-user location which will enhance performance.
Regarding Claim 10, Gopala teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to install an updated application package to the installation location as set forth above and Smith teaches reducing duplication of application data [Smith, Para: 0002]. These claims further recite various aspects of modified application in per-user location with user configurations. Gopala further teaches that various modifications can be made of the teachings per-user configurations [Gopala, col-14(34-45]. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teachings of Gopala and Smith to delete the modified file for the second user if it a duplicate for the purpose of reduce storage waste due to data redundancy in storage and computation time [Smith, Para: 0001].
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection dated 1/21/25 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H REHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1412. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00 - 5.00.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on 571-270-1640. 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.
/MOHAMMED H REHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights