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 Claims 1-10 are presented for examination. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a step of obtaining a parameter… ” which is treated as an information processing device executed functional unit perform ing the function of a n obtaining unit obtaining a target and processing handled by a first system call function at a time when the first system call function is called by a system call [specification, paragraph 41]; “ a step of calling a first system call function… and returning a processing result… ” and “ a step of returning a result… ” are treated as an information processing device executed functional units performing the functions of an monitoring unit and obtaining unit in conjunction with or based on a system call table or rewritten system call table in determining the “different” processing result based on whether the parameter is a monitoring target [specification, paragraphs 42-44]. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 – “ toend ” should read --to end-- . Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The following lack antecedent basis: Claim 4, “the system call table”. Claim 7, “the containers”. The following are indefinite: As to claim 1 0 , it is unclear how “a parameter” obtained when an arbitrary system call function is called by an arbitrary system call affects how a processing result is returned from a first system call function called by a kernel in the limitation “when a processing target in the first system call function to be called that is indicated by the parameter is not a monitoring target” . For examination purpose, the limitation “ a step of obtaining a parameter at a time when a system call function is called by a system call” is treated as --a step of obtaining a parameter at a time when a first system call function is called by a system call by a kernel -- and all subsequent references as “the first system call function” and “ the system call by the kernel ” . As to claim 1, this claim is rejected for the same reason as claim 10 above. As to claims 2- 9, these are dependent claims that depends on claim 1 and are rejected for failing to obviate the deficiency of claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by “PROTECT: Container Process Isolation using System Call Interpretation” to Win et al. (hereafter Win) . Win was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 10/23/24. As to claim 10, Win teaches the invention as claimed including a method of executing, by a computer that includes a processor, a step of obtaining a parameter at a time when a system call function is called by a system call [ interception of system calls in invoking respective functions such as open files or terminate a running process, when a user opens a file , section of the director (i.e., proc and 111) are extracted from the function argument ; process ID (i.e., 111) is extracted , S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation] ; a step of calling a first system call function from a kernel, and returning a processing result of the first system call function, when a processing target in the first system call function to be called that is indicated by the parameter is not a monitoring target that affects an identity of data to be protected [interception of system calls in invoking respective functions such as open files or terminate a running process, such that a determination is made as to whether an opened file belongs to a guest container and the access via system calls by the host is denied access to the target file if it belongs to a guest container process (i.e. access not denied or granted for access or processing if it does NOT belong to a guest container process), S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation] ; and a step of returning a result as in a case where processing by the first system call function is successfully executed, or a processing result indicating an error, without calling the first system call function, when the processing target in the first system call function to be called that is indicated by the parameter is the monitoring target [interception of system calls in invoking respective functions such as open files or terminate a running process, such that a determination is made as to whether an opened file belongs to a guest container and the access via system calls by the host is denied access to the target file if it belongs to a guest container process , S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation ] . As to claim 1, Win teaches the method for method of executing various steps as recited in claim 10, therefore Win teaches the apparatus including a processor comprising: processing circuitry [implementation on a server with processor, S ection V I, Subsection A: Experiment Setup] for implementing the method . As to claim 2, Win teaches the invention as claimed including herein the data to be protected is a container image in a container-type virtualization environment [protecting access to a container, a running instance of a container image, abstract; S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation] . As to claim 3, Win teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the monitoring target is defined in advance as a combination of a content of processing of a process that calls the first system call function, and at least one of a target file and a target directory of the processing of the process [defined security policies/profiles containing path entries, S ection I V , Subsection A: Mandatory Access Control (MAC), numeral 3; S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation, numeral 4] . As to claim 4, Win teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the processing circuitry further configured to rewrite an address of the first system call function of the monitoring target of the system call table to an address of a second system call function that returns a result as in a case where processing by the first system call function is successfully executed, or a result indicating an error, and in obtaining the parameter, a parameter at a time when the second system call function is called by the system call is obtained [rewrite/rerouting or replacing original addresses with the system call functions, S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation, numeral 1)] . As to claim 5, Win teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the processing circuitry further configured to display a screen for receiving specification of at least one or more container images of a plurality of container images in the container-type virtualization environment, and in obtaining the parameter, the parameter is obtained for the system call for the specified one or more container images [user and user interaction with the host in accessing various data or container data via identification of container such as the container’s PID, Section III; S ection V , Subsection B : Implementation, Numeral 2) ] . As to claim 6, Win teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the processing circuitry further configured to start monitoring of the parameter by the step of obtaining at a timing when a container is generated on container host based on a container image in the container-type virtualization environment, and the step of returning the processing result [setup or implementation begin with installation of LXC platform and creating an Ubuntu guest container on the host, S ection V I, Subsections A and B ] . As to claim 7, Win teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the processing circuitry further configured to end, when all the containers are deleted, monitoring of the parameter by the step of obtaining and the step of returning the processing result [setup or implementation begin with installation of LXC platform and creating an Ubuntu guest container on the host such that the absence of any container would end /stop or render monitoring of access to container (s) non-existing , S ection V I, Subsections A and B ] . 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. Cla im(s) 8-9 is/are rejected un der 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Win as applied to claims 1-2 above . As to claim 8 , Win does not specifically teach wherein the data to be protected is difference data used for backup of a container image in a container-type virtualization environment . However, Win disclosed protecting containers (i.e. running instance of container image(s)) and their data [abstract] and monitoring of all resource access requests [S ection V I, Subsections A and B ]. Furthermore, difference data used for backup of container image is well known. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extend Win’s container access control and data protection method to include a variety of data as a matter of design choice without departing from the scope of container access control. As to claim 9, this claim is rejected for the same reason as claims 2 and 8 above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Confine: Automated System Call Policy Generation for Container Attack Surface Reduction” disclosed generating and enforcing restrictive system call policies for containers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should a be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3776 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9AM-6PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lewis Bullock can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3759 . 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. /QING YUAN WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199