DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 08/29/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1a. Status of the claims:
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 15-16 are amended.
Claims 1- 20 are pending.
1b. The objection of the abstract is maintained.
Objection
2. The Abstract is objected because an abstract language should be clear and concise and should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure describes.” MPEP 608.01(b). The language “Access control mechanisms for controlling and/or managing access to cross-cloud services offered by and between one or more cloud service providers is described” can be implied.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive..
A, Applicant argues that Serrano does not disclose the amended limitation of "receiving an indication that deployment of the cross-cloud service at a location within the second cloud environment of a second cloud service provider is permitted based on the request," (Remarks, page 9)
In response to A , The Examiner disagrees because Serrano discloses in paragraphs [0060]; [0226];[0175]) a group permission is copied to a user account at the second cloud environment 710 A in second cloud service 710 and give to the user of the account full access to a service of the first cloud environment; by giving access to a service in the first cloud environment a deployment of the service is also disclosed, a deployment of service that is one of the deployment of services that is deployed between various regions of various virtual clouds networks as it is disclosed in paragraph [0060]; the Examiner takes the position that receiving the group permission is an indication that a deployment of a service is permitted following the request that was being identified ; Serrano discloses in [0175] that request is identified; in addition the second cloud environment is disclosed at a different location that the first cloud environment see [0211]; the cloud service is equated to a cross cloud service because the service is between cloud service providers see [0022] of the specification). Serrano does disclose the claim limitation.
B, Applicant argues that Serrano does not disclose Serrano does disclose the claim limitation "generating, by a second component of the first cloud environment interfacing with the first component, an instruction for deploying the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment of the second cloud service provider," (Remarks, page 9)
In response to B , The Examiner disagrees because Serrano discloses in paragraph [0226] that after receiving the permission to copy the permission right of a service access of the first cloud environment to the second cloud environment, where the access of service is done by an admin group 1025 that is an interface generated that synchronizes the access of the service of the first cloud environment with the second cloud environment. Serrano does disclose the claim limitation.
C, Applicant argues that Serrano does not disclose Serrano does disclose the claim limitation "causing, by the second component and based on the instruction, deployment of the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment." (Remarks, page 9 )
In response to C , The Examiner disagrees because Serrano discloses [0228] a resource from the first cloud environment being deployed to a second cloud environment after a call for requesting resources is initiated. Serrano does disclose the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hernandez Serrano (hereinafter “Serrano”) (US 2023/0251908 A1)), an IDS provided reference.
Regarding claim 1, Serrano discloses a method, comprising:
detecting that a request, from a second cloud environment, for a cross-cloud service provided by a first cloud service provider has been received by a first component of a first cloud environment of the first cloud service provider ( a request received by a multi-cloud infrastructure 720 B ( first component) is being authenticating by module 722B (first cloud environment) where the request correspond to a provider of a service (fist service provider)( in order to authenticate a request the request has to be detected first) , from a second cloud environment 710A ,Serrano, [0175]; [0168]; the cloud service is equated to a cross cloud service because the service is between cloud service providers see [0022] of the specification );
receiving an indication that deployment of the cross-cloud service at a location within the second cloud environment of a second cloud service provider is permitted based on the request (a group permission is copied to a user account at the second cloud environment 710 A in second cloud service 710 and give to the user of the account full access to a service of the first cloud environment; deployment of services being done between various regions of various virtual clouds networks ( receiving the group permission is an indication that a deployment of a service is permitted following the request that was being identified ,Serrano,[0060]; [0226];[0175]) see [0175] for request being identified; in addition the second cloud environment is disclosed at a different location that the first cloud environment see [0211]; the cloud service is equated to a cross cloud service because the service is between cloud service providers see [0022] of the specification);
in response to receiving the indication, generating, by a second component of the first cloud environment interfacing with the first component, an instruction for deploying the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment of the second cloud service provider ( after receiving the permission to copy the permission right of a service access of the first cloud environment to the second cloud environment, an admin group 1025 (that is an interface generated that synchronizes the access of the service of the first cloud environment with the second cloud environment), Serrano, [0226])); and causing, by the second component and based on the instruction, deployment of the cross- cloud service within the second cloud environment ( a resource from the first cloud environment being deployed to a second cloud environment after a call for requesting resources is initiated ,Serrano, [0228])).
Regarding claim 2, Serrano discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the request is associated with a customer having a tenancy within the second cloud environment of the second cloud service provider ( the request received being associated with a first cloud infrastructure that contains tenancy of an account of a user using a cloud-link adaptor that performs translation between external cloud identifiers of the receive request) ,Serrano, [0176; [0177]]); where the received request is disclosed in [0175]).
Regarding claim 3, Serrano discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the request is associated with a customer having a tenancy within the first cloud environment ( the request received being associated with a first cloud infrastructure that contains tenancy of an account of a user using a cloud-link adaptor that performs translation between external cloud identifiers of the receive request) ,Serrano, [0176; [0177]]); where the received request is disclosed in [0175]).
Regarding claim 8, Serrano discloses a system comprising: one or more processing systems; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing systems, cause the system to perform operations ( computer instances store in a memory being executed by a processor ,Serrano, [0113])); in addition, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15,Serrano discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processing systems, cause a system to perform operations ( computer instances store in a memory being executed by a processor ,Serrano, [0113])) ; in addition, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
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.
5. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Manuel-Devadoss (hereinafter “Devadoss”) (US 12,021, 978 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Serrano discloses the method of claim 3.
Serrano does not disclose further comprising: in response to determining that the request is associated with the tenancy of the customer within the first cloud service provider, denying the request.
Devadoss discloses further comprising: in response to determining that the request is associated with the tenancy of the customer within the first cloud service provider, denying the request ( in response to a login request associated with a user to access computing resources of a service provider, the access request is denied when the biometric privacy key to a mobile device of a user that has his previous login attempts not valid, Devadoss, Claim 1])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Devasso’s teachings with Serrano’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently control the access of a computing resource by denying access to the computing resources when previous access attempts of a given user failed.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
5a. Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Paris et al. (hereinafter “Paris”) (US 2018/0260469 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Serrano discloses the method of claim 1.
Serrano in view of Kempanna do not disclose wherein causing the deployment of the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment comprises identifying a cluster placement group within the second cloud environment for the deployment.
Paris discloses wherein causing the deployment of the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment comprises identifying a cluster placement group within the second cloud environment for the deployment ( the execution of a virtual machine flows from one cloud-based environment to another using index Engine to identify a level of the token index (the execution of the virtual machine to another cloud environment is equated to deployment of a cloud service to a second cloud environment) ,Paris, [0095]; [0179])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Paris’s teachings with Serrano’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently deploy network resources in another cloud environment by efficiently identifying the virtual machines where the network resources have to be deployed.
Regarding claim 6, Serrano and Paris disclose the method of claim 5.
Serrano does not disclose wherein second cloud environment comprises one or more infrastructures, and wherein the cluster placement group is located in an infrastructure of the one or more infrastructures.
Paris discloses wherein second cloud environment comprises one or more infrastructures (where another cloud-based environment (second cloud environment) is made of virtual machines, Paris, [0095]; [0179])), and wherein the cluster placement group is located in an infrastructure of the one or more infrastructures (the position ( location) of level (row) group of cells in the data structure (where the group of cells is equated to a cluster of virtual machines) ,Paris, [0095]; [0179])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Paris’s teachings with Serrano’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently deploy network resources in another cloud environment by efficiently identifying the virtual machines where the network resources have to be deployed.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. 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.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455