DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/07/2023.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/07/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 8):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
a virtual machine that accesses a first virtual driver to execute a process; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
a hypervisor that calls a first real driver of a first peripheral, based on a peripheral access request received from the first virtual driver; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
an access recording unit that calls the first virtual driver to record a peripheral access request transmitted to the hypervisor; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
a state recording unit that calls the first real driver to record a state of a register of the first peripheral; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
a monitoring unit that monitors an operation of the hypervisor, wherein the monitoring unit determines an abnormality of the hypervisor, based on a record by the access recording unit and on a record by the state recording unit. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-7 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 8):
…an electronic controller
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (USPGP 2012/0054744 A1), hereinafter SINGH, in view of Spiers et al. (USPGP 2012/0266231), hereinafter SPIERS.
Claims 1, 8:
SINGH as shown below discloses the following limitations:
a virtual machine that accesses a first virtual driver to execute a process; (see at least paragraphs 0004, 0102, 0073, 0090)
a hypervisor that calls a first real driver of a first peripheral, based on a peripheral access request received from the first virtual driver; (see at least paragraphs 0118, 0126, 0127)
an access recording unit that calls the first virtual driver to record a peripheral access request transmitted to the hypervisor; (see at least paragraphs 0118, 0126, 0127)
SINGH does not specifically the following limitations, but SPIERS as shown does:
a state recording unit that calls the first real driver to record a state of a register of the first peripheral; (see at least paragraphs 0010, 0047, 0154)
a monitoring unit that monitors an operation of the hypervisor, wherein the monitoring unit determines an abnormality of the hypervisor, based on a record by the access recording unit and on a record by the state recording unit. (see at least paragraphs 0010, 0047, 0154)
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SINGH with the technique of SPIERS because, “As the number of mobile employees, remote employees, guests and task-based employees increases, so does the need for computing systems that restrict the information available to each type of employee, and isolate an employee's personal data from work-related data. Many companies provide their employees with laptops, remote access to the company's intranet, remote access to applications used by an employee, remote access to an employee's files, and access to remote desktops, virtual machines, or remote applications. In many instances, employees can access company resources from any geographical location, using any machine and/or network.” (SINGH: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 3:
The combination of SINGH/SPIERS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SPIERS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein when a record by the access recording unit and a record by the state recording unit do not match, the monitoring unit determines that the hypervisor is in an abnormal state.
wherein the state recording unit repeatedly acquires a state of the register at a given timing.
See at least paragraphs 0010, 0047, and 0154. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SINGH with the technique of SPIERS because, “As the number of mobile employees, remote employees, guests and task-based employees increases, so does the need for computing systems that restrict the information available to each type of employee, and isolate an employee's personal data from work-related data. Many companies provide their employees with laptops, remote access to the company's intranet, remote access to applications used by an employee, remote access to an employee's files, and access to remote desktops, virtual machines, or remote applications. In many instances, employees can access company resources from any geographical location, using any machine and/or network.” (SINGH: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 5:
The combination of SINGH/SPIERS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SPIERS further discloses the following limitations:
a monitoring result storing unit that when the monitoring unit determines an abnormality, stores a record by the access recording unit and a record by the state recording unit in a nonvolatile memory.
See at least paragraphs 0010, 0047, and 0154. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SINGH with the technique of SPIERS because, “As the number of mobile employees, remote employees, guests and task-based employees increases, so does the need for computing systems that restrict the information available to each type of employee, and isolate an employee's personal data from work-related data. Many companies provide their employees with laptops, remote access to the company's intranet, remote access to applications used by an employee, remote access to an employee's files, and access to remote desktops, virtual machines, or remote applications. In many instances, employees can access company resources from any geographical location, using any machine and/or network.” (SINGH: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 6:
The combination of SINGH/SPIERS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SPIERS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein when a frequency of determination of the hypervisor being in an abnormal state is equal to or larger than a given threshold, the monitoring result storing unit brings the electronic controller partially or entirely to a stop.
See at least paragraphs 0093 and 0154. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SINGH with the technique of SPIERS because, “As the number of mobile employees, remote employees, guests and task-based employees increases, so does the need for computing systems that restrict the information available to each type of employee, and isolate an employee's personal data from work-related data. Many companies provide their employees with laptops, remote access to the company's intranet, remote access to applications used by an employee, remote access to an employee's files, and access to remote desktops, virtual machines, or remote applications. In many instances, employees can access company resources from any geographical location, using any machine and/or network.” (SINGH: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 7:
The combination of SINGH/SPIERS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SPIERS further discloses the following limitations:
a second peripheral different from the first peripheral; and
a second real driver for operating the second peripheral,
wherein following an instruction from the second real driver, the second peripheral outputs a record by the access recording unit to outside of the virtual machine, and
the monitoring unit refers to the record by the access recording unit, the record being outputted to the
outside of the virtual machine.
See at least paragraphs 0010, 0047, and 0154. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SINGH with the technique of SPIERS because, “As the number of mobile employees, remote employees, guests and task-based employees increases, so does the need for computing systems that restrict the information available to each type of employee, and isolate an employee's personal data from work-related data. Many companies provide their employees with laptops, remote access to the company's intranet, remote access to applications used by an employee, remote access to an employee's files, and access to remote desktops, virtual machines, or remote applications. In many instances, employees can access company resources from any geographical location, using any machine and/or network.” (SINGH: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
ManageEngine. “Detect Anomalies with Dynamic Baselines.” (10 February 2010). Retrieved online 02/07/2026. https://www.manageengine.com/products/applications_manager/application-anomaly-detection.html
Jonas Röckl et al. “Advanced System Resiliency Based on Virtualization Techniques for IoT Devices.” (December 2021). Retrieved online 02/07/2026. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3485832.3485836
CISCO. “Security Configuration Guide: Unified Threat Defense.” (Jan 15, 2020). Retrieved online 02/07/2026. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_data_utd/configuration/xe-17/sec-data-utd-xe-17-book.pdf
Foreign Art:
WILSON et al. “TESTING AND BENCHMARKING FOR ENTERPRISE DATA CENTERS.” (WO 2017/193131 A2)
MANCO et al. “METHOD FOR OPERATING VIRTUAL MACHINES ON A VIRTUALIZATION PLATFORM AND CORRESPONDING VIRTUALIZATION PLATFORM.” (WO 2018/184701 A1)
PANDUROV et al. “HYPERVISOR CONTROLLER AND METHOD FOR ASSIGNING APPLICATION IDENTIFIER TO SPECIFIC APPLICATION RUNNING ON VIRTUAL MACHINE.” (WO 2025/214614 A1)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)