CTNF 18/436,985 CTNF 87245 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are pending. Specification The specification is objected to because of the following minor informalities: -- DbaaS -- should be -- DBaaS -- in [0089]. Appropriate correction is required. The use of the term Python, Julia, R, Jupyter etc, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Drawing 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities: -- compute run agent 302 -- in fig. 3 is described as -- run command service 302 --in [0047]. -- AFTER …DEACTIVATE THE SCRIPT 430 -- in fig. 4 should be -- AFTER … DEACTIVATE THE SESSION OF THE CONTAINER SCRIPT -- in fig. 4 430 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. The following claim language is not clearly understood: Claim 1 recites “signal that is associated with a command to delete or deactivate a session of the container” . It is unclear if delete or deactivate are same or different i.e. if delete command include deactivating or delete session doesn’t deactivate the session. Claim 4 recites “ delete script ” and “ deactivation script ”. It is unclear if the delete script would also deactivate the session or not i.e. what is the difference between the delete and deactivation script. It is also unclear what is the purpose of delete script and/or deactivate script since claim 1 recites that deleting or deactivation after the script complete executing. Claim 11 recites “downloading the plurality of scripts to the storage ”. It is unclear if the storage is referring to the storage identified by the location or storage that is local to the virtual machine. Claim 14 recites “active previous to the session”. It is unclear “ the session ” is referring to which session i.e. current / existing sessions or the session being activated Claims 10 and 16 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims. * Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application. Claims 1-8, 10-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “prior to terminating, identifying and executing a script associated with a command to delete/deactivate a session of the container upon receiving the termination signal” as a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Step 1 As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claims 1, 10 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory storage media, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id. Step 2A Prong One As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Independent claim 1 recites the following steps: Claim Elements i. 1. A method comprising: generic computing ii. receiving, by a container of a virtual machine, a termination signal that is associated with a command to delete or deactivate a session of the container; information gathering iii. in response to receiving the termination signal and prior to terminating the session, identifying and executing, by the container, a script that is associated with the command; abstract idea iv. after the script completes executing, deleting or deactivating the session; abstract idea / extra solution activity v. wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices. generic computing The overall process described by steps [iii]-[iv] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus steps [iii]-[iv] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” For example, step [iii] recites “in response to receiving the termination signal and prior to terminating the session, identifying and executing, by the container, a script that is associated with the command”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Similarly, step [iv] recites “after the script completes executing, deleting or deactivating the session”, which is directed to deleting the session after the finishing the execution of the script and requires a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, and can be performed by human mind. Therefore, steps [iii]-[iv] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis, claims 10 and 16 also recite judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong Two As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception . Because claims 1, 10 and 16 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[ii] and [v]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “a method comprising”, which is merely directed to a generic computing method. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “receiving, by a container of a virtual machine, a termination signal that is associated with a command to delete or deactivate a session of the container”, which is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim elements. Claim 1 step [v] recites “wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices”, which is directed to generic computing computer/components. Therefore, these claim elements are directed to generic computer/computing/computing methods. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[ii], [v] and from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i]-[ii] and [v] , either alone or in combination, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 11 and 16 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application. Step 2B As described in MPEP § 2106 , subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice , whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception. The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states: In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states: A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element. Claim 1 in step [i] and [v] recites “method” and “method is performed by one or more computing devices”, which is generic computing method/component, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “receiving….termination signal that is associated with a command to delete or deactivate a session of the container”, which is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest interpretation of the claim elements. Information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity. see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power , 830 F.3d at 1350. Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation in the combination. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output . Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp. , 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”) (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC , 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”). Thus, Claims 1, 10 and 16 are not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. Claim 2 recites “receiving, by an agent of the virtual machine, input that indicates the command relative to the session of the container of the virtual machine (i.e. information gathering), wherein the command is to delete or deactivate the session (i.e. describing the information without further imposing meaningful limitations); in response to receiving the input, generating and transmitting, by the agent, the termination signal (i.e. generating notification, transmitting information ); wherein the container receives the termination signal from the agent (i.e. information gathering)”, which is directed to information gathering, transmission of information e.g. notification. Therefore, these claim elements are neither inventive / provide improvement nor amount to significantly more. Claim 3 recites “wherein identifying and executing the script comprises a script execution process of the container identifying and executing the script, wherein the script execution process is different than a server process, of the container, that provides a user interface to a computing device of a cloud user that initiated the session”. Identifying and executing script is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more because these limitations are common to computing. Running separate process is also routinely performed by ordinary computing components / methods. Adding user interface or GUI component is merely provide information displaying method/component, without further limiting the claim in a manner to make the claim patent eligible. Claim 4 is directed to “determining whether the termination signal is associated with a delete session command or a deactivate session command”, which is considered abstract idea of mental process. Claim 4 further recites “identifying delete script or deactivate script according to the delete signal or deactivate signal, which is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 5 is directed to receiving reference data of storage location, which is information gathering and considered insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 5 further recites the downloading the script from the storage location, which is merely obtaining information from the storage location and is considered as insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 6 recites “ wherein identifying the script comprises retrieving the script from the storage that is local to the virtual machine”, which is directed to accessing information and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more. These can also be considered as insignificant information gathering. Claim 7 is directed to sending and receiving information between compute instance and command service, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation. Information transmission / receiving is considered ordinary computing methods. Claim 8 is directed to receiving notification, storing notification related to delete /deactivate command, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Information receiving /storing is considered ordinary computing methods and don’t amount to significantly more. Adding cloud is same as applying the abstract idea to the technological environment and don’t make the claim patent eligible. Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 11-15 and 17-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0289206 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of Lieberman et al. (US 11,134,098 B1, hereafter Lieberman), and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2023/0388392 A1, hereafter Yao) . As per claim 1, Kim teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method comprising: receiving a termination signal that is associated with a command to delete or deactivate a session of the container ([0007] forwarding, specific session, the container deletion command to the container engine [0036] upon receiving the command, container engine [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions); in response to receiving the termination signal ([0007] container deletion command [0036] upon receiving the command, container engine [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions); deleting or deactivating the session ([0036] container engine, deletes a container [0007] executing, container deletion [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions); wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices ([0021] several computers-server nodes [0022] cluster controller; fig. 2 node 200 node controller 210 container engine 220 container 230 cluster controller 100). Kim doesn’t specifically teach receiving by container of a virtual machine; and prior to terminating the session, identifying and executing, by the container, a script that is associated with the command; after the script completes executing, deleting the session. Liberman, however, teaches receiving by container of a virtual machine (fig. 1 server 130 container 140 col 10 lines 64-67 containers, run on virtual machines, multi-tenant environment; col 3 lines 9-11 type of servers, virtualized servers col 3 lines 54-56 receive input i.e. data, requests etc. from user or other service); and prior to terminating the session, identifying and executing, by the container, a script that is associated with the command (col 7 lines 25-38 issue, elapse, notification, container, associated with elapsed retention time, response to receiving the elapse notification, container lifecycle process, initiates new container creation process i.e. script fig. 4 420-yes-430-execute new container creation process 440 to replace selected container; fig. 5 new container creation process 500 generate new container 520 activate new container 540); after the script completes executing (col 8 lines 60-67 after connecting the new container during step 540 i.e. after the container creation process has created/connected the new container), deleting the session (fig. 4 disconnect selected container from service platform 460 col 8 lines 60-67 container life cycle process and kernel disconnects the old container from the service platform 120, old container may be deleted). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Liberman of request received by the container running on virtual machine, activating new container generated by executing new container process, disconnecting the old container after the generation/connection of new container to improve efficiency and reliability and allow receiving by container of a virtual machine; and prior to terminating the session, identifying and executing, by the container, a script that is associated with the command; after the script completes executing, deleting the session to the method of Kim as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of container running on the virtual machine receiving the request, disconnecting old/selected container after executing the container generation process to replace the old container as taught by Liberman to the method of Kim to yield expected result with improved efficiency and reliability. Kim and Liberman doesn’t specifically teach script that is associated with the command. Yao, however, teaches script that is associated with the command ([0015] invoking, responsive to detection of the condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure that maintains a plurality of events to be executed in the computing session at a plurality of timestamps). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Kim and Liberman with the teachings of Yao of invoking script prior to termination of computing session to improve efficiency and allow executing script that is associated with the command prior to termination of session to the method of Kim and Liberman as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying a known method of invoking script maintaining events data structure prior to termination as taught by Yao to the method of receiving command and deleting session responsive to the command to yield expected result of executing script associated with the command with improved efficiency and resource utilization. As per claim 2, Kim teaches receiving, by an agent, input that indicates the command relative to the session of the container of the virtual machine, wherein the command is to delete or deactivate the session ([0007] forwarding, container addition /deletion command to the container engine [0036] upon receiving the command, container engine [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions; fig. 4 container agent 240 container 230); in response to receiving the input, generating and transmitting, by the agent, the termination signal ([0043] container agent, forward, container changes i.e. can also forward the container deletion command); wherein the container receives the termination signal from the agent ([0043] container agent, forward, container changes i.e. can also forward the container deletion command). Liberman teaches remaining claim elements of receiving by an agent of virtual machine input (col 13 lines 15-17 containers, virtual machines, fig. 8 nodes 820 kubelet 870 - node agent proxy 880 POD 810 col 11 lines 27-37 kubelet 870 node agent, takes a set of PoDSpecs, apiserver 830, ensures that the containers, running and healthy i.e. can also ensure deletion). As per claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the script execution process is different than ([0047] forwards container deletion command to the container engine [0010] executing, by a container engine, container deletion i.e. different from the API, controller) a server process, of the container, that provides a user interface to a computing device of a cloud user that initiated the session ([0045] multi-container-based computational session, API handler receives an API request for deleting a container for specific session, request for deleting a container for a specific session at the request of a user or administrator). Liberman teaches remaining claim elements of identifying and executing the script comprises a script execution process of the container identifying and executing the script, where the script process is different from the server process (fig. 4 execute new container creation process to replace selected container 440; fig. 5 new container creation process 500 obtain golden container from container registry 210 based on application type i.e. identifying the script; generate / activate new container 510 540 i.e. executing). As per claim 7, Kim teaches sending, from a compute instance upon which the session resides, to a command service that is separate from the compute instance, a command request for one or more commands for the session (fig. 2 cluster controller 100 Node 200 node controller 210 container 230 [0034] node controller 210 forwards the sensed event information to the cluster controller; OOM, CPU usage, specific interval i.e. can be substituted with command request); wherein receiving the input is performed in response to sending the command request ([0036] cluster controller forwards a container addition/deletion command to a node controller; node controller forwards the container addition / deletion command to the container engine, upon receiving the command, container engine [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions). As per claim 8, Kim teaches prior to the compute instance sending the command request to the command service ([0034] node controller 210 forwards the sensed event information to the cluster controller; OOM, CPU usage, specific interval i.e. can be substituted with command request): receiving, at the command service, from a cloud control plane, a notification that a user, of the session, selected a delete or deactivate option associated with the session ([0045] API handler receives, API request for deleting a container, session, request of a user); in response to receiving the notification, storing the notification in storage that is local to the command service ([0035] analyzing the received event information i.e. would require storing locally for analysis); wherein the notification includes a compute instance identifier that identifies the compute instance or a session identifier that identifies the session ([0045] receives, request, deleting a container, specific session i.e. specific identifier[0047] cluster controller, forwards, container, deletion, command, to the node controller of the specific session, forward to the container engine; fig. 5 S305). As per claim 9, Kim teaches further comprising: receiving second input that indicates a second command relative to a second session of a second container the cloud system ([0007] forwarding, container addition / deletion command, node controller, specific session, the container deletion command to the container engine i.e. can be any number of commands [0036] upon receiving the command, container engine [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions [0051] cloud services); in response to receiving the second input ([0007] container deletion command [0036] upon receiving the command, container engine [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions), transmitting a second termination signal ([0036] forwards the container addition or deletion command to the container engine); deleting or deactivating the second session without waiting for execution of the second script to complete ([0036] container engine, deletes a container [0007] executing, container deletion [0026] session, composed of at least one container, commands to delete sessions i.e. no wait before deletion unless batch/interactive session). Liberman teaches remaining claim elements of receiving a second input that indicates a second command relative to a second session of a second container of a second virtual machine in the cloud system (fig. 1 server 130 container 140 col 10 lines 64-67 containers, run on virtual machines, multi-tenant environment; col 3 lines 9-11 type of servers, virtualized servers col 3 lines 54-56 receive input i.e. data, requests etc. from user or other service; col 8 lines 60-67 kernel, disconnects the old container, old container may be deleted col 9 lines 5-10 sets the container to disabled status); prior to terminating the second session, identifying and executing a second script that is associated with the second command (col 7 lines 25-38 issue, elapse, notification, container, associated with elapsed retention time, response to receiving the elapse notification, container lifecycle process, initiates new container creation process i.e. script fig. 4 420-yes-430-execute new container creation process 440 to replace selected container; fig. 5 new container creation process 500 generate new container 520 activate new container 540). Yao, however, teaches remaining claim elements of generating a terminal signal ([0130] termination condition, initiation of a session termination process [0149] transmit a disconnection, termination or logoff request to the server); determining whether a time period from the start of executing the second script to a current time exceeds a timeout period ([0102] compare a difference between the first time stamp and the time stamp of the event to the threshold, if the difference is above the threshold, [0103] compare the second timestamp to the time limit, filter event, after the time limit [0008] invoke, responsive to detection of condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure [0104] when accessing the data structure i.e. after executing the access script, timeslots outside the threshold duration fig. 6 604-608-N-616); in response to determining that the time period exceeds the timeout period ([0102] [0103] [0104] when accessing the data structure, time slot outside the threshold duration, filter the event from consideration [0008] invoke, responsive to detection of condition and prior to termination of the computing session, a script configured to access a data structure; fig. 6 604-608-N-616), deleting or deactivating the second session without waiting for execution of the second script to complete ([00010] second event, second detection of the condition, terminate the computing session without provision of…element configured to extent the computing session [0130] condition to terminate, disconnect or logoff a computing session based on inactivity in the computing session e.g. duration, threshold). Claim 16 recites one or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause performing elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 17 recites one or more storage media comprising the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices, further cause performing elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 18 recites one or more storage media for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of Mazzaferri, as applied to above claims . As per claim 10, Lieberman teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method comprising: at a cloud system , identifies a storage location of a script (col 2 lines 11-20 golden container storage, container registry, store golden containers i.e. script for containers col 2 lines 51-60 data center, virtual server, cloud-based); creating a virtual machine in the cloud system (col 12 lines 17-27 fig. 9 cloud infrastructure 900 VMs 902); downloading the script from the storage location into the virtual machine (fig. 2 container registry 210 golden container 220; fig. 5 container creation process 500 initially obtains a golden container 220 from the container registry 210 during step 510; fig. 1 server 130 container 140; col 3 lines 1-5 server 130 virtualized server); executing the script (fig. 4 440 fig. 5 new container creation process 500 - 510 - generate new container based on golden container 520 i.e. executing golden container); initiating a session within a container of the virtual machine (col 9 lines 10-16 new session traffic, service, containers 350-2, 350-3 until a new container is activated to replace the disabled container 350-1 i.e. new session with new container fig. 1 server 130 container 140; col 3 lines 1-5 server 130 virtualized server); wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (fig. 9 physical infrastructure 905 VM 902 col 10 lines 29-37). Lieberman doesn’t specifically teach receiving reference data that identifies the storage location, based on reference data, downloading script data into storage that is local to the virtual machine. Mazzaferri, however, teaches receiving reference data that identifies the storage location ([0185][0221] client, access resource, icon, associated with an encoded URL that specifies: the location of resource i.e. remote machines, URL includes a file or a reference to a file [0346] information, identification of a location of files associated with plurality of virtual machine [0414] user data, identifying, URL, associated with a location on which virtual machine image is stored, URL accessible by the computing device), based on reference data, downloading script data into storage that is local to the virtual machine ([0414] computing device 8910 accesses a storage element identified by the user data 8930, e.g. storage element, storing the virtual machine image 8925 [0416] virtual machine, executed, computing environment 8920’ to provide access to a requested resource, virtual machine 8925’ executes a virtual machine 8925” [0419] computing device, virtualization layer 8922 is established using the virtualization software 8921’ stored on the computing device 8910 fig. 89A computing device 8910 storage element 128 virtualization SW 8921’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Liberman with the teachings of Mazzaferri of client accessing the URL that specified the location of resource / files/ virtual image storage, exchange information to access resource, computing device accesses the identified storage element and retrieves data / VM image from the storage device to local storage element 128 and execute the image e.g. virtual machine execute another virtual machine to improve efficiency and allow receiving reference data that identifies the storage location, based on reference data, downloading script data into storage that is local to the virtual machine to the method of Liberman as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of user data identifying URL associated with a location on which virtual machine image is stored, URL accessible by the computing device, accessing and retrieving the VM image and storing and executing the VM image on the computing device as taught by Mazzaferri to the method of Liberman to yield expected results and improved efficiency. As per claim 11, Liberman teaches a storage location of a plurality of scripts that includes the script (fig. 2 container registry 210 Golden container 220 col 5 lines 1-5 container registry 210, storing one or more golden containers 220A-N), wherein downloading the script comprises downloading the scripts to the storage (fig. 5 obtain golden container 220 from container registry 210 based on application type 510 ). Mazzaferri teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the reference data identifies storage location ([0185][0221] client, access resource, icon, associated with an encoded URL that specifies: the location of resource i.e. remote machines, URL includes a file or a reference to a file [0346] information, identification of a location of files associated with plurality of virtual machine [0414] user data, identifying, URL, associated with a location on which virtual machine image is stored, URL accessible by the computing device), downloading the plurality of scripts ([0176] client machine, volatile storage, storing downloaded application programs i.e. plurality of programs). As per claim 12, Liberman teaches wherein the plurality of scripts comprises two or more of a create session script (col 7 lines 25-38 container lifecycle process, initiates new container creation process i.e. script fig. 4 420-yes-430-execute new container creation process 440 to replace selected container; fig. 5 new container creation process 500 i.e. new session creation script; col 8 lines 35-40 assigns an IP address to the new container i.e. new session ), an activate session script (fig. 5 activate new container 540 i.e. activation script), a deactivate session script (fig. 4 disconnect container from service platform 460 i.e. deactivate script), or a delete session script (col 8 lines 64-67 old container, deleted ). As per claim 13, Liberman teaches initiating a first server container process for providing a user interface to a cloud user of the session (fig. 1 server 130-1 container 140-1-A; col 3 lines 45-63 front end application type container 140, facilitating the interaction between a service and a user, receive input, provide output, implement a GUI; col 10 lines 20-25 cloud services, cloud infrastructure tenants); initiating a second server container process, that is different than the first server container process, for executing lifecycle scripts (fig. 4 container life cycle process 400 execute new container creation process 440 disconnect selected process 460 fig. 1 server 130-M, container 140-M-A col 3 lines 64-67 back end application type container 140 server computing resources, operations supporting service col 4 lines 14-30 database application type container, management information) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-6, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lieberman, and further in view of Yao, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Mazzaferri et al. (US 2007/0198656 A1, hereafter Mazzaferri) . As per claim 4, Kim teaches determining whether the termination signal is associated with a delete session command or a deactivate session command ([0007] deletion command to the container); if the termination signal is associated with a delete session commend ([0007] deletion command to the container). Liberman teaches remaining claim elements of if the termination signal is associated with a deactivation session commend (fig. 4 disconnect selected container from the service platform). Yao teaches remaining claim elements of identifying the script ([0008] invoke, script, configured, access, data structure, maintains). Kim, Liberman and Yao, in combination, do not specifically teach identifying the script comprises identifying a delete script; identifying the script comprises identifying a disconnect script. Mazzaferri, however, teaches identifying the script comprises identifying a delete script ([0853] seamless windowing mode session, packet sent by server agent, TWI_PACKET_DELETW, which is sent to destroy a window on the client machine [0938] delete function); identifying the script comprises identifying a deactivation script ([0853] TWI_PACKET_CLOSE, switch the client out of seamless window [0854] packets, sent, client agent 3816 to the server agent 3814: TWI_PCKET_C2H_PAUSE / RESUME, sent to suspend the server agent [0584] disconnection and reconnection processed by the session login mechanism [1131] server process, disconnect client machine from an application session). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Kim, Liberman and Yao with the teachings of Mazzaferri of sending delete packet to delete window mode session and sending a pause packet to pause/switch from window mode to improve efficiency and allow identifying the script comprises identifying a delete script; identifying the script comprises identifying a disconnect script to the method of Kim, Liberman, and Yao as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying a known method of sending delete / pause packet to delete / disconnect the window session as taught by Mazzaferri to the method of Kim, Liberman and Yao to yield expected result and improved efficiency. As per claim 5, Liberman teaches further comprising, prior to receiving the input: downloading, from the storage location, the script to storage that is local to the virtual machine (fig. 1 server 130 container 140 fig. 2 RMS 200 container registry 210 golden container 220 fig. 5 obtain golden container from container registry 210 col 10 lines 64-67 containers, run on virtual machines, multi-tenant environment). Kim, Liberman, and Yao, in combination, do not specifically teach receiving reference data that identifies a storage location of the script. Mazzaferri, however, teaches receiving reference data that identifies a storage location of the script ([0185] collected data, available resource, indication of a location of the virtual machine [0221] user, access, resource, encoded URL, location of the resource, URL include a file or a reference to a file [0346] identification of a location of files associated with the plurality of virtual machines); in response to receiving the reference data, downloading ([0221] information necessary for a client create connection, exchange information regarding access to the desired resource [0346] identification of a location of files associated with the plurality of virtual machines). As per claim 6, Mazzaferri teaches wherein identifying the script comprises retrieving the script from the storage that is local to the virtual machine (fig. 89A computing device 8910 storage element 128 virtualization SW 8921’ [0397] the computing device 8910 obtains the virtualization software 8921 from a storage element 128' virtual machine 8925’). Claim 19 recites one or more storage media for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 20 recites one or more storage media for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of Mazzaferri, and further in view of Nishino et al. (US 2021/0012001 A1, hereafter Nishino) . As per claim 14, Liberman teaches wherein executing the script comprises: based on the script being an activate session script (fig. 5 activate new container in service platform 540), a previous session that was active previous to the session (fig. 4 disconnect selected container from service platform 460). Mazzaferri teaches retrieving second storage results that was generated in previous session ([1187] remote machine, stores application session data [1190] stored application database, contains, data, associated, application sessions or providing application session data [0010] learning process by monitoring user’s behavior). Liberman and Mazzaferri doesn’t specifically teach results that was generated by a machine learning model that was trained in previous sessions. Nishino, however, teaches results that was generated by a machine learning model that was trained in previous sessions ([0037] operations logs, sessions, learns, machine learning model, training data [0038] acquires operation logs, session before, generates feature amount, inputs, to the learned machine learning model [0063] learning result DB, stores learning result of learning units, machine learning, deep learning [0079] stores the learning result in the learning result DB 16 when completing the learning). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Liberman and Mazzaferri with the teachings of Nishino of training machine learning model using training data based on operation logs and storing result generated by inputting operation logs from previous session to the learned machine learning model to improve efficiency and allow storing results that was generated by a machine learning model that was trained in previous sessions to the method of Liberman and Mazzaferri as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying a known method of using previous session logs to train machine learning model and storing the output of the learned machine learning model into database as taught by Nishino to the method of Liberman and Mazzaferri to yield expected result and improved efficiency. As per claim 15, Liberman teaches wherein initiating the session comprises: retrieving, from second storage, data; a previous session that was deactivated prior to receiving the reference data (fig. 5 obtain golden container 220 from container registry 210 based on type 510 activate new container in service platform 540 fig. 4 stop sending new sessions to selected container, disconnect selected container from service platform 460). Nishino teaches session data that was generated in a previous session that was deactivated prior to receiving the reference data ([0037] acquires the operation logs generated in respective sessions). Examiners Note Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Becchetti (US 11,290,687 B1) teaches system of multiple use video live streaming session control Chen et al. (US 2023/0205505 A1) teaches container management method Kumar et al. (US 2024/0187398 A1) teaches method of terminating network device session. Parker (US 2014/0026133 A1) teaches virtual container for network system Patil et al. (US 12,470,578 B1) teaches containerized agent for monitoring container activity in a computer environment Stanev et al. (US 2006/0155756 A1) teaches session lifecycle management within a multi-tiered enterprise network Authorization for Internet Communication Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03) “Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs. 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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 3 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 5 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 7 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 8 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 9 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 10 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 11 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 12 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 13 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 14 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 15 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 16 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 17 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 18 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 19 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 20 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 21 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 22 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 23 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 24 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 25 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 26 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 27 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 28 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 29 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 30 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 31 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 32 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/436,985 Page 33 Art Unit: 2195
Prosecution Insights