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 Office Action is in response to the applicant’s claim amendment filed on October 2, 2025.
Response to Remark’s
The applicant filed a claim amendment of October 2, 2025. The newly added claim limitations include:
creating a first disk for temporary storage;
pulling one or more container images from an external repository to the first dis;
unpacking the one or more container images to the first disk
It is noted the prior Office Action mailed on July 2, 2023 presents a 103 rejection (Wu and Featonby) based on the claim amendment filed o March 12, 2025. Accordingly, the Office Action and the 103 rejection addresses the claim amendment filed on March 12, 2025. Therefore, the newly issued rejection presented below addresses the new claim amendment filed on October 2, 2025.
Applicant argues: The applicant argues (1) Neither Wu nor Featonby teach the creation of a temporary storage disk, where the container image(s) are pulled from external repositories. (2) Featonby does not teach the creation of a temporary storage disk for receiving the container images, and unpacking the container images to the temporary storage disk.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added claim limitations have been addressed in the Office Action below. In the prior issued Office Action mailed on July 2, 2025 the new claim limitations were not provided in the claim limitations in an effort for them to be presented for review.
The applicant argues: Featonby does not pre-load the container image.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Featonby does teach a container image of a preloaded container see Abstract, prefetching container images.
Thus, the remaining claims are also rejected for the same reasons as set forth below in the Office Action.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Publication No. 2025/0124006 filed December 16, 2024, continuation of application No. 17/017288 filed September 10, 2020, now Patent No. 12,169,480, hereinafter Wu); Featonby et al. (Patent No. 11,573,816 filed June 26, 2020, hereinafter Featonby); and Pan et al. (Publication No. 2023/0315502 filed March 29, 2022, hereinafter Pan).
9. Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Wu teaches creating a first disk for temporary storage (see [0004] the container image may be used to create an executable image, where the container image stores contents of a disk image within the plurality of layers of the container image (see [0009]); see [00037 creation function; see figure 3C a disk image node, see additionally [0047], where the OS-less containers comprises the node with the disk image); unpacking the one or more container images to the first disk (see [0004] the container image may be used to create an executable image, where the container image stores contents of a disk image within the plurality of layers of the container image (see [0009]); see [00037 creation function; see figure 3C a disk image node, see additionally [0047], where the OS-less containers comprises the node with the disk image); generating with one or more processors a disk image of the first disk for a secondary disk (see Abstract, a disk image layer of a plurality of layers of the container image with the container image consisting of a plurality of layers, the layers consisting of a second layer wherein the second layer has a disk image layer with contents stored in the directory); creating a node attached to the secondary disk containing the disk image (see [0004] the container image may be used to create an executable image, where the container image stores contents of a disk image within the plurality of layers of the container image (see [0009]); see [00037 creation function; see figure 3C a disk image node, see additionally [0047], where the OS-less containers comprises the node with the disk image); reading secondary disk during container runtime ([0034] the container image is the combination of read-only layers, see [0029] container runtime is a process that becomes a parent process for container 220 when container 220 is created); and installing the container onto the node (see [0025] installation on top of hardware virtualization layer).
However, Wu does not expressly teach pulling one or more container images from an external repository and a container image of a preloaded container.
Featonby teaches a container image of a preloaded container form the disk image.(Abstract, see, prefetching container images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Featonby’s method with Wu’s method because Featonby’s method enables prefetching container images for use in a cluster of virtual machines, the cluster manifest may indicate an ordered list of image repositories and a set of container images that are likely to be executed on the cluster.
Featon does not expressly teach pulling one or more container images form an external repository.
Pan teaches pulling one or more container images form an external repository ([0059] Repository 501 can be connected to host 502, so that host 502 is able to pull container images from repository 501 or push container images to repository 501 and [0060] Container launcher 5022 in host 502 can send an image pulling request for an application to image manager 5021 to request a container image for running, and a running instance of an image can be formed into a container of the application. Upon receiving the request, the image manager 5021 can return the requested image to container launcher 5022 with the help of repository 501 and/or image sharing file system 503 according to embodiments of the present disclosure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Pan’s method with Featon’s method because Pan’s method enables downloading an image from an image repository that is provided during runtime.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Wu teaches generating the disk image of the disk comprises: generating a disk (see [0009]); see [0037] creation function); mounting the secondary disk (Abstract disk image layer is mounted in the directory and a second layer of the disk image layer is mounted in the directory); and creating a snapshot of the container image from the disk ([0023] copy of the created container image).
Regarding 6 and 16, Wu teaches creating the snapshot of the container image from the disk comprises: creating a temporary view of a container image layer (see [0009]); see [0037] creation function, Abstract including layers); copying the snapshot into a specific location the secondary disk ([0023] copy of the created container image).; and creating a metadata file related to the snapshot and the specific location on the secondary disk ([0023] copy of the created container image).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Wu teaches the metadata includes s snapshot identifier and a snapshot path (Abstract, see directory snapshot path).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Wu teaches attaching the secondary disk to the node by updating a workload of the nod see (Abstract, a disk image layer of a plurality of layers of the container image with the container image consisting of a plurality of layers, the layers consisting of a second layer wherein the second layer has a disk image layer with contents stored in the directory).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Wu teaches updating the workload of the node comprises specifying a disk identifier (ID) of the secondary disk on a specification of node (see Abstract, a disk image layer of a plurality of layers of the container image with the container image consisting of a plurality of layers, the layers consisting of a second layer wherein the second layer has a disk image layer with contents stored in the directory).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Wu teaches attaching the secondary disk to the node comprises: specifying a disk node of the secondary disk as a local cache (see Abstract, a disk image layer of a plurality of layers of the container image with the container image consisting of a plurality of layers, the layers consisting of a second layer wherein the second layer has a disk image layer with contents stored in the directory); and appending mount path of the disk with the specified disk mode on a specification of the node pool (see Abstract, a disk image layer of a plurality of layers of the container image with the container image consisting of a plurality of layers, the layers consisting of a second layer wherein the second layer has a disk image layer with contents stored in the directory).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Publication No. 2025/0124006 filed December 16, 2024, continuation of application no. 17/017288 filed on September 10, 2020, now Patent No. 12,169,480, hereinafter Wu); Featonby et al. (Patent No. 11,573,816 filed June 26, 2020, hereinafter Featonby); and Pan et al. (Publication No. 2023/0315502 filed March 29, 2022, hereinafter Pan) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Srivastava et al. (Publication No. 2022/0222100 filed January 13, 2021, hereafter Srivastava).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Wu nor Pan do not expressly teach a persistent disk.
Srivastava teaches secondary disk is a persistent disk ([0064] a persistent disk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Srivastava’s virtualized computing system with Wu’s virtualized computing system because Srivastava’s virtualized computing system enable launching in cooperation with a security module of a host a guest as a virtual machine (VM) managed by the virtualization layer, the security module generating an attestation report from at least a portion of the VM loaded into memory of the host.
Featonby does not expressly teach a persistent disk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Srivastava’s virtualized computing system with Featonby’s virtualized computing system because Srivastava’s virtualized computing system enables producing verification of an attestation report obtaining at a guest from an entity at least one key using a transport layer security data in a secret to verify the identity of the guest to the entity.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Publication No. 2025/0124006 filed December 16, 2024, continuation of application no. 17/017288 filed on September 10, 2020, now Patent No. 12,169,480, hereinafter Wu); Featonby et al. (Patent No. 11,573,816 filed June 26, 2020, hereinafter Featonby); and Pan et al. (Publication No. 2023/0315502 filed March 29, 2022, hereinafter Pan) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Acharya (Publication No. 2010/0274784 filed April 23, 2010, hereinafter Acharya).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Wu nor Pan do not expressly teach a secondary boot disk.
However, Acharya teaches a secondary boot disk ([0042] a boot disk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Acharya’s method with Wu’s method because Archarya’s method enables managing a file directory containing data that is exposed by a file-server, the system provides a block-device layered on top of a network share that treats the underlying network share as read-only but allows local file-system semantics to operate on top of the network share.
Featonby does not expressly teach at least one disk is a secondary boot disk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Acharya’s method with Featonby’s method because Archary’s method enables a virtual disk containing a locally recognizable file system that can read and write from the perspective of the operating system but where the data is store in the cloud as network shares.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Publication No. 2025/0124006 filed December 16, 2024, continuation of application no. 17/017288 filed on September 10, 2020, now Patent No. 12,169,480, hereinafter Wu); Featonby et al. (Patent No. 11,573,816 filed June 26, 2020, hereinafter Featonby); and Pan et al. (Publication No. 2023/0315502 filed March 29, 2022, hereinafter Pan) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jorapur et al. (Patent No. 11,966,302 filed August 24, 2022, continuation of application No. 16/912,154 filed June 25, 2020 now Patent No. 11,467,917, hereinafter Jorapur).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Wu nor Pan do not expressly teach a disk image is binary data encapsulating an application and software dependencies.
Jorapur teaches a disk image is binary data encapsulating an application and software dependencies (column 8, lines 8-10, binary data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Jorapur’s method with Wu’s method because Jarapur’s method enables a virtual machine disk image file backup being selected among a plurality of virtual machine disk image file backups stored on a backup storage based on a backup update policy.
Featonby does not expressly teach a disk image is binary data encapsulating an application and software dependencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Jorapur’s method with Featonby’s method because Jarapur’s method enables a backup update policy, and update to the mounted version of a selected virtual machine disk image file backup is applied without restoring the selected virtual machine disk image file backup.
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 CHERYL R LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
/CHERYL LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 January 24, 2026