DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on March 14, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
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 .
Claim Objections
Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and 37 CFR 1.75 with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 706(II) DEFECTS IN FORM OR OMISSION OF A LIMITATION; CLAIMS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and the applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and when possible should offer a definite suggestion for correction.
MPEP § 2173.02(II) THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF CLARITY AND PRECISION
The examiner’s focus during examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is whether the claim meets the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. When the examiner is satisfied that patentable subject matter is disclosed, and it is apparent to the examiner that the claims are directed to such patentable subject matter, the examiner should allow claims which define the patentable subject matter with the required degree of particularity and distinctness. Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of terms should be permitted so long as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is satisfied. Examiners are encouraged to suggest claim language to applicants to improve the clarity or precision of the language used, but should not insist on their own preferences if other modes of expression selected by applicants satisfy the statutory requirement.
37 CFR 1.75 Claim(s).
(a) The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
According to the sections of the MPEP and the patent rule provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that a claim must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. In accordance with MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and in the claim objections hereinafter, the Examiner provides suggested claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims in order to improve the clarity or precision of the claim language used. Hence, doing so would help the Examiner in reviewing the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Examiner believes that making claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims will promote a clearer understanding of the claims and ease of readability for the readers.
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 19 recite “the feature files.” It should read -- the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 18 recite “one of the feature files.” It should read -- one feature file of the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “(‘package file system’).” It should read -- (“a package file system”) --.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “(‘target file system’).” It should read -- (“a target file system”) --.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “wherein when an application running.” It should read -- wherein when the application running --.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “that feature file.” It should read -- that feature file of the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 recite “the first physical memory.” It should read -- the first physical memory of the computing device --.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “the computer device.” It should read -- the computing device --.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “the second physical memory.” It should read -- the second physical memory of the computing device --.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein generating the path information.” It should read -- wherein generating the path information in the computing device --.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “each feature file.” It should read -- each feature file of the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “its symbolic link.” It should read -- a symbolic link of that feature file of the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “the path information.” It should read -- the generated path information --.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “one of the directories in the list of directories.” It should read -- one directory of the list of directories --.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “the feature file.” It should read -- that feature file of the plurality of feature files --.
Claim 8 recites “a computer-readable storage device comprising.” It should read -- a non-transitory computer-readable storage device storing --.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “a feature file.” It should read -- one feature file of the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 9 and 16 recite “wherein the extension package.” It should read -- wherein the extension package comprising the package file system --.
Claims 9 and 16 recite “its feature files.” It should read -- the plurality of feature files --.
Claims 9 and 16 contain a typographical error: a comma (,) should be added before the limitation “and the target file system is stored […].”
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.
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 a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the package file” at line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a package file” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 2-7 depend on Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-7 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation “the location” at line 11, 16, and 13, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a location” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 2-7 depend on Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-7 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 1.
Claims 9-14 depend on Claim 8. Therefore, Claims 9-14 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 8.
Claims 16-20 depend on Claim 15. Therefore, Claims 16-20 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 15.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the limitation “the computing device” at line 5 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a computing device” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 9-14 depend on Claim 8. Therefore, Claims 9-14 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 8.
Claims 16-20 depend on Claim 15. Therefore, Claims 16-20 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0371771 (hereinafter “Liu”) (cited in the IDS submitted on 07/16/2025) in view of US 2023/0334093 (hereinafter “Garduno Hernandez”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to installing extension packages on a target computing device (Abstract). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Liu is generally directed to upgrading a software product using an upgrade package of the software product (Liu, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Garduno Hernandez is generally directed to a graph file system, comprising content nodes and relationships between the nodes, implemented in a kernel space (Garduno Hernandez, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Liu and Garduno Hernandez are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Liu discloses:
A method (paragraph [0013], “Some example implementations provide a method of upgrading a software product.”) for installing a software feature on a computing device, the method comprising:
[Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the limitation “installing a software feature on a computing device” in the preamble of the claim is not given any patentable weight because it is merely a statement of purpose or intended use of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.02.]
storing an extension package on the computing device, the extension package comprising a file system (“package file system”) (paragraph [0034]1, “[…] the upgrade package 201 [an extension package] may include a metadata file 202, one or more executable files 203 and an installation file 204 of the software product 1.”; paragraph [0037], “The metadata file 202 may also include information indicating a type of a disk file system. The type of the disk file system may indicate the type of the target file. For example, the type of the disk file system may be ext4 [a file system (“package file system”)].”; paragraph [0045], “The memory 502 is generally any piece of computer hardware that is capable of storing information such as, for example, data, computer programs (e.g., computer-readable program code 503) and/or other suitable information either on a temporary basis and/or a permanent basis (emphasis added).”), the extension package further comprising installation instructions stored therein for installing the feature files (paragraph [0034], “The installation file 204 may be an OVA file of the software product 1 including all files of the software product 1 with the latest version or a newer version. Thus, the installation file 204 may include all the upgraded files needed to upgrade the software product 1 to the latest version or newer version [installation instructions stored therein for installing the feature files].”); and
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[t]he extension package 300 comprises one or more feature packages 312 (e.g., Package-A, Package-B, etc.) to be installed in the target device” (paragraph [0023]). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “an extension package” includes an update package, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “an extension package,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Liu’s update package. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).]
using the installation instructions to install the feature files in a file system of the computing device (“target file system”) that is separate from the package file system (paragraph [0040], “At block 402, the method includes executing the one or more executable files to perform operations for upgrading the software product. In one example, the operations performed at block 402 can be further divided into four steps as shown in sub-blocks 4021, 4022, 4023 and 4024. At sub-block 4021, the method includes unpacking the installation file. At sub-block 4022, the method includes adding a disk file in the installation file to a virtual machine based on a file name indicated in the metadata file. The disk file includes upgraded files of the software product [using the installation instructions to install the feature files in a file system of the computing device (“target file system”) that is separate from the package file system].”), wherein the installation instructions include:
identifying the location of the package file system within the package file (paragraph [0040], “At sub-block 4022, the method includes adding a disk file in the installation file to a virtual machine based on a file name indicated in the metadata file. The disk file includes upgraded files of the software product (emphasis added).”);
mounting the package file system to a mount point on the target file system (paragraph [0040], “At sub-block 4023, the method includes mounting the disk file to a mount point of the virtual machine. The mount point is indicated in the metadata file (emphasis added).”); and
generating path information in the computing device that indicates the location of the feature files relative to the mount point on the target file system (paragraph [0040], “At sub-block 4024, the method includes providing a path to access the upgraded files based on the mount point and a folder path of the upgraded files indicated in the metadata file (emphasis added).”),
wherein when an application running on the computing device accesses one of the feature files, the computing device uses the generated path information to find that feature file on the package file system (paragraph [0039], “At block 304, the upgrade executor can provide or return the full path to access the upgraded files based on the mount point and the folder path of the upgraded files indicated in the metadata file 202. The full path to access the upgraded files may be: mountPoint+“/”+rootFolder. For example, the upgrade executor can access the upgraded files using the path /tmp/xxx-disk1/home/xxx to upgrade the software product to a latest or newer version (emphasis added).”).
Liu does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system, wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device; and
wherein read/write operations are performed on that feature file on the package file system.
However, Garduno Hernandez discloses:
a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system (Figure 1; paragraph [0005], “To illustrate a hierarchical file system, FIG. 1 depicts a file system hierarchy 100 with a root directory D1 and second-level directories D11-D14 that are ‘located within’ (or are immediate child nodes of) directory D1. File system hierarchy 100 further comprises third-level directories D21 and D22 and third-level files F1-F7, where files F1-F3 are located within directory D11, file F4 is located within directory D12, directory D21 and file F5 are located within directory D13, and files F6-F7 and directory D22 are located within directory D14 [a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system].”), wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device (paragraph [0038], “FIG. 2A depicts an example computing system 200A running an application 210 in a user space of the computing system. In system 200A, application 210 uses Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) file system commands to interact with a particular file system, of file systems 230A-230N, via a virtual file system switch (VFS) 220 implemented in a kernel space of system 200A [wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device].”); and
wherein read/write operations are performed on that feature file on the package file system (paragraph [0039], “VFS 220 is a layer of software that causes the particular file system to implement POSIX file system commands issued by application 210 for hierarchically-organized file systems by translating the POSIX commands to instructions that are specific to the target hierarchically-organized file system [performed on that feature file on the package file system]. Because VFS 220 abstracts the details of how a particular file system implements the POSIX command, application 210 may issue any type of POSIX command (such as Open, Read, Write, or Close) without modification for any type of file system (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Liu and Garduno Hernandez are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Garduno Hernandez into the teaching of Liu to include “a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system, wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device; and wherein read/write operations are performed on that feature file on the package file system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user to access data in a file, via a user interface, by navigating from one directory to another directory that includes the file (Garduno Hernandez, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Liu further discloses:
wherein the extension package comprising the package file system and the feature files are stored in a first physical memory of the computer device, and the target file system is stored in a second physical memory of the computer device different from the first physical memory (paragraph [0045], “The memory 502 is generally any piece of computer hardware that is capable of storing information such as, for example, data, computer programs (e.g., computer-readable program code 503) and/or other suitable information either on a temporary basis and/or a permanent basis. The memory may include volatile and/or non-volatile memory, and may be fixed or removable.”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Liu further discloses:
wherein the first physical memory is non-volatile memory, and 3. the second physical memory is volatile memory (paragraph [0045], “The memory 502 is generally any piece of computer hardware that is capable of storing information such as, for example, data, computer programs (e.g., computer-readable program code 503) and/or other suitable information either on a temporary basis and/or a permanent basis. The memory may include volatile and/or non-volatile memory, and may be fixed or removable.”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Liu further discloses:
wherein content of the feature files are not copied to the target file system (paragraph [0039]1, “At block 303, the upgrade executor can use the type of the disk file system and the mount point indicated in the metadata file 202 to mount the disk file with a specified type to a specified mount point. For example, the upgrade executor can mount the disk file xxx-disk1.vmdk to a mount point tmp/xxx-disk1 of a virtual machine at block 303. At block 304, the upgrade executor can provide or return the full path to access the upgraded files based on the mount point and the folder path of the upgraded files indicated in the metadata file 202. The full path to access the upgraded files may be: mountPoint+“/”+rootFolder. For example, the upgrade executor can access the upgraded files using the path /tmp/xxx-disk1/home/xxx to upgrade the software product to a latest or newer version.”).
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Liu discloses that the upgrade executor can mount the disk file xxx-disk1.vmdk to a mount point tmp/xxx-disk1 of a virtual machine. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the files of the disk file are not copied to the virtual machine but rather remain in the disk file system.]
As per Claim 8, Liu discloses:
A network device (Figure 5) comprising:
one or more computer processors (Figure 5: 501); and
a computer-readable storage device (Figure 5: 502) comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to:
store an extension package on the computing device, the extension package comprising a file system (“package file system”) (paragraph [0034]1, “[…] the upgrade package 201 [an extension package] may include a metadata file 202, one or more executable files 203 and an installation file 204 of the software product 1.”; paragraph [0037], “The metadata file 202 may also include information indicating a type of a disk file system. The type of the disk file system may indicate the type of the target file. For example, the type of the disk file system may be ext4 [a file system (“package file system”)].”; paragraph [0045], “The memory 502 is generally any piece of computer hardware that is capable of storing information such as, for example, data, computer programs (e.g., computer-readable program code 503) and/or other suitable information either on a temporary basis and/or a permanent basis (emphasis added).”), the extension package further comprising installation instructions stored therein for installing the feature files (paragraph [0034], “The installation file 204 may be an OVA file of the software product 1 including all files of the software product 1 with the latest version or a newer version. Thus, the installation file 204 may include all the upgraded files needed to upgrade the software product 1 to the latest version or newer version [installation instructions stored therein for installing the feature files].”); and
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[t]he extension package 300 comprises one or more feature packages 312 (e.g., Package-A, Package-B, etc.) to be installed in the target device” (paragraph [0023]). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “an extension package” includes an update package, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “an extension package,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Liu’s update package. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).]
use the installation instructions to install the feature files in a file system of the computing device (“target file system”) that is separate from the package file system (paragraph [0040], “At block 402, the method includes executing the one or more executable files to perform operations for upgrading the software product. In one example, the operations performed at block 402 can be further divided into four steps as shown in sub-blocks 4021, 4022, 4023 and 4024. At sub-block 4021, the method includes unpacking the installation file. At sub-block 4022, the method includes adding a disk file in the installation file to a virtual machine based on a file name indicated in the metadata file. The disk file includes upgraded files of the software product [use the installation instructions to install the feature files in a file system of the computing device (“target file system”) that is separate from the package file system].”), wherein the installation instructions control the one or more computer processors to:
mount the package file system to a mount point on the target file system (paragraph [0040], “At sub-block 4023, the method includes mounting the disk file to a mount point of the virtual machine. The mount point is indicated in the metadata file (emphasis added).”); and
generate path information in the computing device that indicates the location of the feature files relative to the mount point on the target file system (paragraph [0040], “At sub-block 4024, the method includes providing a path to access the upgraded files based on the mount point and a folder path of the upgraded files indicated in the metadata file (emphasis added).”),
wherein when an application running on the computing device accesses one of the feature files, the computing device uses the generated path information to find that feature file on the package file system (paragraph [0039], “At block 304, the upgrade executor can provide or return the full path to access the upgraded files based on the mount point and the folder path of the upgraded files indicated in the metadata file 202. The full path to access the upgraded files may be: mountPoint+“/”+rootFolder. For example, the upgrade executor can access the upgraded files using the path /tmp/xxx-disk1/home/xxx to upgrade the software product to a latest or newer version (emphasis added).”).
Liu does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system, wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device; and
wherein read/write operations are performed on that feature file on the package file system.
However, Garduno Hernandez discloses:
a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system (Figure 1; paragraph [0005], “To illustrate a hierarchical file system, FIG. 1 depicts a file system hierarchy 100 with a root directory D1 and second-level directories D11-D14 that are ‘located within’ (or are immediate child nodes of) directory D1. File system hierarchy 100 further comprises third-level directories D21 and D22 and third-level files F1-F7, where files F1-F3 are located within directory D11, file F4 is located within directory D12, directory D21 and file F5 are located within directory D13, and files F6-F7 and directory D22 are located within directory D14 [a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system].”), wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device (paragraph [0038], “FIG. 2A depicts an example computing system 200A running an application 210 in a user space of the computing system. In system 200A, application 210 uses Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) file system commands to interact with a particular file system, of file systems 230A-230N, via a virtual file system switch (VFS) 220 implemented in a kernel space of system 200A [wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device].”); and
wherein read/write operations are performed on that feature file on the package file system (paragraph [0039], “VFS 220 is a layer of software that causes the particular file system to implement POSIX file system commands issued by application 210 for hierarchically-organized file systems by translating the POSIX commands to instructions that are specific to the target hierarchically-organized file system [performed on that feature file on the package file system]. Because VFS 220 abstracts the details of how a particular file system implements the POSIX command, application 210 may issue any type of POSIX command (such as Open, Read, Write, or Close) without modification for any type of file system (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Liu and Garduno Hernandez are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Garduno Hernandez into the teaching of Liu to include “a plurality of feature files organized in a hierarchy of directories on the package file system, wherein the feature files constitute a software feature for an application that runs on the computing device; and wherein read/write operations are performed on that feature file on the package file system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user to access data in a file, via a user interface, by navigating from one directory to another directory that includes the file (Garduno Hernandez, paragraph [0005]).
Claims 9, 10, and 14 are network device claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 2, 3, and 7, respectively). Therefore, Claims 9, 10, and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2, 3, and 7, respectively.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage device claim corresponding to the network device claim hereinabove (Claim 8). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 16 and 17 are non-transitory computer-readable storage device claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 2 and 3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Garduno Hernandez as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2002/0143795 (hereinafter “Fletcher”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to installing extension packages on a target computing device (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Fletcher is generally directed to customized computer file management (Fletcher, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Fletcher is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Liu and Garduno Hernandez does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the path information comprises creating a symbolic link to each feature file in the package file system at a location in the target file system, wherein the application accesses one of the feature files during execution via its symbolic link in the target file system.
However, Fletcher discloses:
wherein generating the path information comprises creating a symbolic link to each feature file in the package file system at a location in the target file system, wherein the application accesses one of the feature files during execution via its symbolic link in the target file system (paragraph [0045], “A symbolic link is a special file that has a pathname as its data. When the symbolic link is named in a request such an open request, the link portion of the pathname is replaced by the link’s ‘data’ and the path is re-evaluated. Symbolic links are a flexible means of pathname indirection and are often used to provide multiple paths to a single file. Unlike hard links, symbolic links can cross file systems and can also create links to directories. Hard links are confined to one filesystem, linking one inode to another.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fletcher is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fletcher into the combined teachings of Liu and Garduno Hernandez to include “wherein generating the path information comprises creating a symbolic link to each feature file in the package file system at a location in the target file system, wherein the application accesses one of the feature files during execution via its symbolic link in the target file system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide multiple paths to a single file (Fletcher, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Liu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the feature files are stored in a directory structure of the package file system.
However, Garduno Hernandez discloses:
wherein the feature files are stored in a directory structure of the package file system (Figure 1; paragraph [0005], “To illustrate a hierarchical file system, FIG. 1 depicts a file system hierarchy 100 with a root directory D1 and second-level directories D11-D14 that are ‘located within’ (or are immediate child nodes of) directory D1. File system hierarchy 100 further comprises third-level directories D21 and D22 and third-level files F1-F7, where files F1-F3 are located within directory D11, file F4 is located within directory D12, directory D21 and file F5 are located within directory D13, and files F6-F7 and directory D22 are located within directory D14.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Garduno Hernandez is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Garduno Hernandez into the teaching of Liu to include “wherein the feature files are stored in a directory structure of the package file system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user to access data in a file, via a user interface, by navigating from one directory to another directory that includes the file (Garduno Hernandez, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Liu and Garduno Hernandez does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the feature files are linked to the target file system in a directory structure in the target file system same as the directory structure of the package file system.
However, Fletcher discloses:
wherein the feature files are linked to the target file system in a directory structure in the target file system same as the directory structure of the package file system (Figures 2, 3, and 5; paragraph [0047], “[…] a personal file system to complement the file system of FIGS. 2 and 3, could be generated as per FIG. 5. Note that the root level of the original file system in FIG. 2 is labelled ‘main’ as it is common to all systems, while the root of the custom file system is labelled ‘sysname’ in FIG. 5, which will generally be replaced with the name of the system associated with the custom file system. The next level of both file systems are the same, including directories for various software applications: ‘drawing’, ‘wordpro’, ‘songs’ and ‘modem’.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fletcher is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fletcher into the combined teachings of Liu and Garduno Hernandez to include “wherein the feature files are linked to the target file system in a directory structure in the target file system same as the directory structure of the package file system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to sort files into a structure of folders, directories, subdirectories, or similar categories, making them easier to identify and locate (Fletcher, paragraph [0005]).
Claims 11 and 12 are network device claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 4 and 5, respectively). Therefore, Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 4 and 5, respectively.
Claims 18 and 19 are non-transitory computer-readable storage device claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 4 and 5, respectively). Therefore, Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 4 and 5, respectively.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Garduno Hernandez as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2007/0055715 (hereinafter “Achiwa”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to installing extension packages on a target computing device (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Achiwa is generally directed to providing a highly-convenient file migration environment (Achiwa, paragraph [0009]). Thus, Achiwa is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Liu further discloses:
wherein when the application running on the computing device accesses the feature file, the computing device uses […] the path information to find the feature file (paragraph [0039], “At block 304, the upgrade executor can provide or return the full path to access the upgraded files based on the mount point and the folder path of the upgraded files indicated in the metadata file 202. The full path to access the upgraded files may be: mountPoint+“/”+rootFolder. For example, the upgrade executor can access the upgraded files using the path /tmp/xxx-disk1/home/xxx to upgrade the software product to a latest or newer version.”).
The combination of Liu and Garduno Hernandez does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the path information comprises a list of directories, wherein one of the directories in the list of directories is the mount point on the target file system.
However, Achiwa discloses:
wherein the path information comprises a list of directories, wherein one of the directories in the list of directories is the mount point on the target file system (paragraph [0072], “The window 801 includes a window for displaying a list of directory files (or directory paths), i.e., a directory file display window 802, a window for displaying a list of storage tiers in which directory files are stored, i.e., a storage tier display window 803. The storage tier display window 803 displays storage tiers in which the directory files displayed in the directory file display window 802 are stored, in relation to those directory files.”; paragraph [0079], “The button 811 is used to direct file migration involving new file system creation. The file migration engine 25 is used for file migrations involving new file system creation. The file migration engine 25 creates a new file system only containing the file designated as the move target in a free logical device, and mounts that file system in the source directory.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Achiwa is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Achiwa into the combined teachings of Liu and Garduno Hernandez to include “wherein the path information comprises a list of directories, wherein one of the directories in the list of directories is the mount point on the target file system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display a list of directory files (or directory paths) so that an administrator can select a file or directory targeted for file migration to direct file migration between storage tiers (Achiwa, paragraphs [0072] and [0074]).
Claim 13 is a network device claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage device claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2008/0010630 (hereinafter “Ou-Yang”) discloses virtualizing the installation of a software application on a computing system.
US 2015/0227355 (hereinafter “Tripoli”) discloses generating customized volume images that can be used to launch customized virtual computers on one or more elastic virtual computer cloud systems.
US 2018/0089206 (hereinafter “Tamura”) discloses performing live updates to file system volumes of computing devices through the utilization of snapshots.
US 12,118,379 (hereinafter “Tikhomirov”) discloses secure package installation into a target container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for more information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191