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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 18, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered (see strikethroughs on annotated IDS).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued in substance that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest “…a first set of user interfaces (UIs) and being associated with a first set of endpoints related to the CSP-offered cloud services”, “…the second console comprising a second set of user interfaces and being associated with a second set of endpoints related to the first reseller-offered cloud services…wherein the first set of endpoints are different than the second set of endpoints.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Rowland teaches a plurality of endpoints (customer systems, see FIG. 1 – 26 and para. [0113]). The examiner further notes that while the applicant argues “each endpoint in the first set or the second set is determined based on what service(s) is provided via the first console or the second console, respectively”, no such limitation is found in the applicant’s claims. As a result, the customer specific user interfaces (e.g. FIG. 13 where the interface is different for each customer based on which environments are associated with that specific user, see para. [0145]) for their respective environments shows that different customers (e.g. different sets of endpoints as claimed) and their corresponding systems are associated with different interfaces as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowland, et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0054426 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rowland).
Claim 1 is an independent claim, and Rowland discloses a method, comprises:
using a first portion of cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region (virtual data center in utility computing platform, para. [0002]) to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the CSP (provide each customer with a virtual data center with virtual data center resources, para. [0116], [0120], [0121]);
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure, wherein creating the first vPLC comprises allocating a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure to the first vPLC (virtual center services components enable a system administrator to quote, create and manage customer environments, and to assist the customer, in provisioning and managing customer self-provisioned virtual data center resources, para. [0116], [0120], [0121]; the examiner notes that “for a first reseller” is an intended use limitation and therefore is not a patentable distinction);
using the first vPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller (enable the customers to self-provision their virtual data center resources, para. [0116]);
providing, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a first console for the one or more customers of the CSP, the first console comprising a first set of user interfaces (Uls) (Figs. 8A-8B depict graphical user interface screens of an example customer provisioning console for enabling a customer administrator to grant access to the customer’s environments by a system administrator of the customer provisioned utility computing platform, para. [0132], see also Figs. 12-29) and being associated with a first set of endpoints related to the CSP-offered cloud services (different customers and their associated customer systems with their user specific user interfaces, FIG. 1, 12-29 and para. [0113], [0132], [0145], [0146], [0151]); and
providing, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a second console for the one or more customers of the first reseller, the second console comprising a second set of user interfaces (customer specific user interfaces for their respective environments, para. [0132], see also Figs. 12-29) and being associated with a second set of endpoints related to the first reseller-offered cloud services (different customers and their associated customer systems with their user specific user interfaces, FIG. 1, 12-29 and para. [0113], [0132], [0145], [0146], [0151]);
wherein the second console is different from the first console (implicit user interfaces for each different customer, para. [0132], Figs. 12-29) and wherein the first set of endpoints are different than the second set of endpoints (different customers and their associated customer systems with their user specific user interfaces, FIG. 1, 12-29 and para. [0113], [0132], [0145], [0146], [0151]).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses wherein the first console is executed by a first server and the second console is executed by a second server that is different from the first server (different virtual servers to dedicate to particular customers, para. [0114]).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses wherein the first console and the second console are executed by the same server (application servers in combination with web servers enable software applications to create, manage and provision their own virtual data center resources, para. [0116]).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses wherein the first set of Uls comprises Uls customized for the CSP (see FIG. 12-29; the examiner notes that “customized for the CSP” is an intended use limitation and therefore not a patentable distinction); and wherein the second set of Uls comprises Uls customized for the first reseller (see FIG. 12-29; the examiner notes that “customized for the first reseller” is an intended use limitation and therefore not a patentable distinction).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses an endpoint in the first set of endpoints is callable via the first console (customers of the system may access the customer provisioning utility computing platform, para. [0116]; network communications from customer using a web browser and inherent computing hardware show a connection is thus “callable” as claimed).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses an endpoint in the second set of endpoints is callable via the second console (customers of the system may access the customer provisioning utility computing platform, para. [0116]; network communications from customer using a web browser and inherent computing hardware show a connection is thus “callable” as claimed).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses wherein the second console is associated with a namespace for the first vPLC (reseller information for virtualization control system provider…base URL to the reseller’s registered domain, public subnet that resolves to the base URL…virtualization control system accessed by customer through URL of the reseller, para. [0281]-[0282]).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses further comprising:
creating a second vPLC for a second reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure, wherein creating the second vPLC comprises allocating a third portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure to the second vPLC (provide each customer with a virtual data center with virtual data center resources, para. [0116], [0120], [0121]);
using the second vPLC to provide one or more second reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the second reseller (enable the customers to self-provision their virtual data center resources, para. [0116]); and
providing, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a third console for the one or more customers of the second reseller, the third console comprising a third set of UIs (Figs. 8A-8B depict graphical user interface screens of an example customer provisioning console for enabling a customer administrator to grant access to the customer’s environments by a system administrator of the customer provisioned utility computing platform, para. [0132], see also Figs. 12-29);
wherein the first console, the second console, and the third console are different (implicit user interfaces for each different customer, para. [0132], Figs. 12-29).
Claim 9 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. Rowland further discloses one or more processors (see para. [0312], [0316]); and one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of a computing system, cause the system to perform the method (see para. [0316]).
As per claim 10, claim 9 is incorporated. Claim 10 corresponds to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 11, claim 9 is incorporated. Claim 11 corresponds to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 12, claim 9 is incorporated. Claim 12 corresponds to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 13, claim 9 is incorporated. Claim 13 corresponds to the combination of claims 5 and 6 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 14, claim 9 is incorporated. Claim 14 corresponds to claim 7 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 15 is an independent claim anticipated by the combination of claims 1 and 8 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 16, claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 16 corresponds to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 17, claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 17 corresponds to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 18, claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 18 corresponds to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. The examiner notes that “for the first reseller” and “for the second reseller” are intended use limitations and therefore do not provide any patentable distinction.
As per claim 19, claim 15 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses wherein the first console is associated with a namespace for the first vPLC, and the second console is associated with a namespace for the second vPLC (reseller information for virtualization control system provider…base URL to the reseller’s registered domain, public subnet that resolves to the base URL…virtualization control system accessed by customer through URL of the reseller, para. [0281]-[0282]).
As per claim 20, claim 15 is incorporated and Rowland further discloses wherein an endpoint in the first set of endpoints is callable via the first console; and wherein another endpoint in the second set of endpoints is callable via the second console (each of the customers of the system may access the customer provisioning utility computing platform, para. [0116]; network communications from each customer using a web browser and inherent computing hardware show a connection is thus “callable” as claimed).
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN A BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 530PM.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/JONATHAN A BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443