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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 12/03/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments were fully considered and are mood in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 6-9, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Masahiro Yamaguchi et la (hereinafter Yamaguchi) US Publication No 20210064412 in view of Ben-Shaul et al (hereinafter Ben-Shaul) US Publication No. 20090198805.
As per claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches:
A method comprising:
providing a base image;
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0059], wherein the OS image is the base image)
providing, by a processing device, an application required by a first device of the plurality of devices as a set of layers;
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0013] and [0059])
providing the base image to each of the plurality of devices;
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0059])
providing each of the set of layers to the first device;
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0059])
and mounting, at the first device, each of the set of layers on top of the base image.
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0013] and [0059])
Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach providing, by a processing device, an application required by a first device of the plurality of devices as a set of layers that is separate from the base image, however in analogous art of application management, Ben-Shaul teaches:
providing a base image defining functionality that is common to a plurality of devices;
(Abstract and paragraphs [0037]-[0038], wherein the base image contains shared operating system (common functionality as cited in paragraph [0019] of the instant specification) across multiple device)
providing, by a processing device, an application required by a first device of the plurality of devices as a set of layers that is separate from the base image;
(Paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0069], [0072]-[0073], wherein specific application/setting is propagated to the device separately from the shared image)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul by incorporating the teaching of Ben-Shaul into the method of Yamaguchi. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the software management of Ben-Shaul into the system of Yamaguchi for the purpose of on managing application deployment based on need criteria.
As per claim 2, Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a mount order for each of the set of layers; and providing the mount order to a storage driver of the first device, wherein the storage driver mounts each of the set of layers on top of the base image based on the mount order.
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraph [0059])( Yamaguchi)
As per claim 6, Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the functionality that is common to the plurality of devices comprises an operating system.
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0059], wherein the OS image is the base image)(Yamaguchi)
As per claim 7, Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein the storage driver comprises an overlay file system.
(Fig. 4 and Abstract and paragraphs [0013] and [0059]) (Yamaguchi)
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are system claims respectively corresponding to method claims 1-2 and 6-7 and they are rejected under to the same rational as claims 1-2 and 6-7.
Claims 15-16 and 20 are non-transitory computer-readable claims respectively corresponding to method claims 1-2 and 6 and they are rejected under to the same rational as claims 1-2 and 6.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul in view of Daseke et al (hereinafter Daseke) US Publication No. 20030229726.
As per claim 3, Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul do not explicitly teach mount order is provided to the storage driver as kernel parameters of an operating system defined by the base image, however in analogous art of software deployment, Daseke teaches:
mount order is provided to the storage driver as kernel parameters of an operating system defined by the base image.
(Paragraphs [0034] and [0040])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul and Daseke by incorporating the teaching of Daseke into the method of Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the software management of Daseke into the system of Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul for the purpose of ensuring software deployment integrity.
Claim 10 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 3 and it is rejected under to the same rational as claim 3.
Claim 17 is non-transitory computer-readable claim corresponding to method claim 3 and it is rejected under to the same rational as claim 3.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul in view of Jean-Louis et al (hereinafter Jean-Louis) US Publication No. 20210255847.
As per claim 4, Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul do not explicitly teach receiving an updated version of the first application; calculating a difference between the first application and the updated version of the first application, however in analogous art of software deployment, Jean-Louis teaches:
receiving an updated version of the first application;
(Fig. 8, 10 and Abstract and paragraphs [0034] and [0040], wherein the current version is the updated version)
calculating a difference between the first application and the updated version of the first application;
(Fig. 8, 10 and Abstract and paragraphs [0034] and [0040])
providing the difference to the first device as a new layer;
(Fig. 8 and Abstract and paragraphs [0034] and [0040])
and mounting the new layer on top of the set of layers using a storage driver of an operating system defined by the base image.
(Fig. 8, 10 and Abstract and paragraphs [0034], [0040] and [0065])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul and Jean-Louis by incorporating the teaching of Jean-Louis into the method of Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the software management of Jean-Louis into the system of Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul for the purpose of managing software version deployment.
Claim 11 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 4 and it is rejected under to the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 17 is non-transitory computer-readable claim corresponding to method claim 4 and it is rejected under to the same rational as claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul in view of Ramasamy et al (hereinafter Ramasamy) US Publication No. 20190227781.
As per claim 5, Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul do not explicitly teach receiving an updated version of the first application; providing the updated version to the first device as a new set of layer, however in analogous art of software deployment, Ramasamy teaches:
receiving an updated version of the first application;
(Paragraphs [0025], [0044] and [0051])
providing the updated version to the first device as a new set of layers;
(Paragraphs [0025], [0044] and [0051])
unmounting the set of layers using a storage driver of an operating system defined by the base image;
(Paragraphs [0025], [0044] and [0051])
and mounting the new set of layers using the storage driver.
(Paragraphs [0025], [0044] and [0051])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul and Ramasamy by incorporating the teaching of Ramasamy into the method of Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the software management of Ramasamy into the system of Yamaguchi and Ben-Shaul for the purpose of managing software version deployment.
Claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 5 and it is rejected under to the same rational as claim 5.
Claim 19 is non-transitory computer-readable claim corresponding to method claim 5 and it is rejected under to the same rational as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. 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.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 1/13/2026