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
This action is responsive to amendment filed August 13, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims, and canceled claim 20.
Claims 1-19 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/13/26, regarding the previous 101 and 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. That rejections have been withdrawn. However a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on Boshev in view of Kapur, as presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
MPEP Section 2004 “Aids to Compliance with Duty of Disclosure” recites:
“It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.” MPEP Section 2004, #13
The information disclosure statement which was filed on 9/2/26 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to their merits. It is noted that the filed IDS’s comprise hundreds of references spanning thousands of pages of highly technical disclosure, which meets the test of a "long list". The Examiner objects to the large volume of submitted references, especially that it contains information clearly irrelevant to the claims at hand. Since the MPEP states “Elimination of all clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information” then the Examiner requests the Applicant to provide guidance by pointing out which references the Examiner should focus on.
For example: In the IDS filed on 9/2/26:
US Publication 20220377111 is directed to evaluating user compliance with an organizations security policy;
US Publicaiton 20210036851 is directed to a key management service using key proxies and indexes.
Accordingly the IDS of 9/2/26 will not be considered. References will not be considered until the most relevant documents in the IDS are specifically pointed out in some clear manner, per MPEP 2004, or until a new IDS is resubmitted with all irrelevant and marginally pertinent references removed. Please do not delineate the relevant references using a highlighter (per MPEP 2004) since the documents will be scanned and the highlighted sections will not be visible. Circling or underlining is acceptable, or anything which makes the selected references clearly marked. A new IDS 1449 form containing only the relevant documents is acceptable. All references will be reconsidered upon Applicants guidance and compliance. Applicant's forthcoming assistance is gratefully anticipated.
“… applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the … information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.” MPEP Section 609.04(a) III.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5,8-10,13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boshev et al (US Publication 20220377135) in view of Kapur et al (US Publication 20180176176).
In reference to claim 1, Boshev a method, comprising:
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC)-specific endpoint for a service running on a first portion of a cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a region, the service being one of CSP-offered cloud services, the first vPLC-specific endpoint being associated with a first fully qualified domain name (FQDN), which is associated with a first IP address; (see at least ¶s 34,38, where Boshev teaches a first cloud application/endpoint providing an application service on a first portion of a cloud platform/infrastructure; and see at least ¶ 67 & ¶ 69 lines 1-8, where Boshev teaches the cloud application/endpoint is associated with a URL (which inherently includes a FQDN) and which is associated with an IP address)
creating a second vPLC-specific endpoint for the service running on a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure, the second vPLC-specific endpoint being associated with a second FQDN, which is associated with a second IP address; (see at least Figure 2 #281, ¶ 47 lines 1-5 & ¶ 53, where Boshev teaches the cloud platform providing a second cloud application/endpoint providing the application service and running on a second portion of the cloud platform; and see ¶ 67 where Boshev teaches the multiple applications each associated with a URL/FQDN)
accessing the service by the first vPLC-specific endpoint to perform a first function; and accessing the service by the second vPLC-specific endpoint to perform a second function (see ¶ 35 lines 10-20 and ¶ 67 lines 1-2, where Boshev teaches a user accessing the cloud applications to execute application related functions).
Boshev teaches multiple applications on the cloud platform and each associated with a single IP address entry point of the cloud platform (see Boshev, at least ¶ 28). Boshev fails to explicitly teach wherein the first FQDN and the second FQDN are each mapped to an existing FQDN associated with an existing endpoint, and wherein the first IP address is same as the second IP address. However, Kapur teaches overlapping domains in a multi-tenant cloud environment, and discloses each different FQDN are mapped to a single same IP address (see Kapur, at least Abstract & ¶s 2-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Boshev based on the teachings of Kapur for the purpose of facilitating user access of common cloud-based applications with distinct domains and on the same cloud.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 65,66,89, which teaches concurrent access to the first and second cloud application endpoints.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 38,80, which teaches multiple (including third) instances of the cloud application on multiple zones/portions of the cloud infrastructure.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 67,69, which teaches existing URL and IP address for the cloud application.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,67,69, which teaches that the first and second IP address could be the same one IP address.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,38,39,68, where Boshev teaches accessing the first and second cloud applications runs on first and second availability zones, where the applications are mapped to the URL.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,38,39,68, where Boshev teaches accessing the first and second cloud applications runs on first and second availability zones, where the applications are mapped to the URL.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 38,39, where Boshev teaches identifying a first instance of a cloud application/endpoint that provides a service, and which runs on a first availability zone (portion of a cloud infrastructure), and that provides a cloud service via a cloud platform, and also see at least ¶ 28 lines 1-10, ¶ 67 & ¶ 68 line 1-8, where Boshev teaches the cloud application/endpoint is associated with a URL.
Claims 13-15, are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-5,8-10 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
Claims 6,7,11,12,16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boshev et al (US Publication 20220377135) in view of Kapur et al (US Publication 20180176176) in view of Zhang et al (US Publication 20140173683).
In reference to claim 6, Boshev fails to explicitly teach wherein the first FQDN is created based at least in part on the existing FQDN. However, Zhang teaches deploying applications in a cloud service, and creating application URL/FQDN based on an initial domain name (see Zhang, at least Abstract & ¶s 59-63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Boshev based on the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of facilitating common application access for users.
In reference to claim 7, Boshev teaches multiple instances of a cloud application (see above citations). Zhang teaches creating application URL/FQDN based on an initial domain name (see Zhang, at least Abstract & ¶s 59-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Boshev in view of the teachings of Zhang based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 11, Boshev teaches multiple instances of a cloud application (see above citations). Zhang teaches creating application URL/FQDN based on an initial domain name (see Zhang, at least Abstract & ¶s 59-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Boshev in view of the teachings of Zhang based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 12, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,38,39,68, where Boshev teaches accessing the first and second cloud applications runs on first and second availability zones, where the applications are mapped to the URL.
Claims 16-19 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-12 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights