DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s response filed 1/05/26.
As indicated in Applicant’s response, no claims have been amended. Claims 1-18 are resubmitted pending a next office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 7, 13 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,607(hereinafter ‘607).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following observations. Following are but a few examples as to how the certain claims from the instant invention and from the above copending application are conflicting with each other.
Instant claim 1 ‘607 claim 1
method at a computing device comprising: obtaining a first container image from a host computing device; executing a second container image at the computing device, comprising:
starting a container from the first container image, the container being for a development environment on the computing device;
method at a computing device comprising: obtaining a first container image from a host computing device; executing a second container image at the computing device, comprising:
starting a container from the first container image, the container being for a development environment on the computing device
customizing the container for a local environment on the computing device, thereby creating a customized container, the customizing comprising
duplicating local user and group identifiers within the container for allowing read and write access with the local user and group identifiers within the customized container;
customizing the container for a local environment on the computing device, thereby creating a customized container, the customizing comprising
duplicating local user and group identifiers within the container for allowing read and write access with the local user and group identifiers within the customized container; automatically importing licenses into the container for the development environment;
and compiling developed code within the customized container.
and compiling developed code within the customized container.
Hence, instant claim 1 is deemed an obvious variant to ‘607 claim 1.
Instant claim 7 (system) recites the same features of instant claim 1; whereas ‘607 claim 7 recites the exact limitations of ‘607 claim 1; hence instant claim 7 is deemed an obvious variant of ‘607 claim 7.
Instant claim 13 (medium) recites the same features of instant claim 1; whereas ‘607 claim 13 recites the exact limitations of ‘607 claim 1; hence instant claim 13 is deemed an obvious variant of ‘607 claim 13 for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 7, 13 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,467,825(hereinafter ‘825).
Instant claim 1 ‘825 claim 1
method at a computing device comprising: obtaining a first container image from a host computing device; executing a second container image at the computing device, comprising:
starting a container from the first container image, the container being for a development environment on the computing device;
method at a computing device comprising: obtaining a
first container image from a host computing device;
executing a second container image at the computing
device, comprising: starting a container from the first
container image, the container being for a development environment on the computing device
customizing the container for a local environment on the computing device, thereby creating a customized container, the customizing comprising
duplicating local user and group identifiers within the container for allowing read and write access with the local user and group identifiers within the customized container;
customizing the container for a local environment on the computing device, thereby creating a customized container, the customizing comprising:
duplicating local user and group identifiers within the container for allowing read and write access with the local user and group identifiers within the customized container; automatically importing licenses into the container for the development environment;
and compiling developed code within the customized container.
and compiling developed code within the customized container
Hence, instant claim 1 is deemed an obvious variant to ‘825 claim 1.
Instant claim 7 (system) recites the same features of instant claim 1; whereas ‘825 claim 5 (system) recites the exact limitations of ‘825 claim 1; hence instant claim 7 is deemed an obvious variant of ‘825 claim 5.
Instant claim 13 (medium) recites the same features of instant claim 1; whereas ‘825 claim 10 (medium) recites the exact limitations of ‘825 claim 1; hence instant claim 13 is deemed an obvious variant of ‘825 claim 10 for the same reasons.
Instant dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18 are therefore deemed unpatentable for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM/Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on (571)272-3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3735 ( for non-official correspondence - please consult Examiner before using) or 571-273-8300 ( for official correspondence) or redirected to customer service at 571-272-3609.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
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).
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
February 09, 2026