DETAILED ACTION
This Action is a response to the reply filed 21 July 2026. Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 16 and 18-19 are amended; no claims are canceled or newly added. Claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adusumilli et al., U.S. 2025/0147746 A1 (“Adusumilli”) in view of Clerc et al., U.S. 2011/0264776 A1 (“Clerc”).
Regarding claim 1, Adusumilli teaches: A method for optimized operating system (OS) image deployment (Adusumilli, e.g., ¶12, “methods for self-booting and self-imaging a computing node … imaging the computing node using the another operating system …”), the method comprising:
installing, by a computer system, a pseudo-image on a partition of a memory of the computer system, wherein the pseudo-image is configured to enable the computer system to be booted from the partition, and wherein the pseudo-image is associated with an OS data image stored on a remote server communicatively coupled to the computer system by a network; booting the computer system using the partition of the memory that includes the pseudo-image (Adusumilli, e.g., ¶23, “computing node 102 may be configured to boot itself into the bootstrapping environment using bootstrap operating system 114 via boot device 112 …” See also, e.g., ¶21, “image hosting server 120 may be located remote from computing node 102 … location of the image server may be known to computing node by way of boot device 112 … may comprise a URL …” Examiner’s note: the bootstrap operating system (i.e., a reduced operating system) is the pseudo-image; it may be used to boot the device from the partition at which the bootstrap OS is stored; the OS is associated with another OS located on the remote node by way of the known means of accessing or addressing the remote node);
executing, by the computer system, an OS install program associated with the pseudo-image (Adusumilli, e.g., ¶23, “computing node 102 may, by executing instructions 108 for self-bootstrapping and/or self-imaging, may be configured to access the image hosting server 120 and receive a software image for computing node 120, the software image comprising the another operating system 122 …”); during execution of the OS install program …
retrieving, by the computer system, the requested particular data over the network from the OS data image on the remote server (Adusumilli, e.g., ¶23, “computing node 102 may, by executing instructions 108 for self-bootstrapping and/or self-imaging, may be configured to access the image hosting server 120 and receive a software image for computing node 120, the software image comprising the another operating system 122 …”).
Adusumilli does not more particularly teach identifying a request for particular data from the pseudo-image, determining that the particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image, and in response thereto retrieving the requested particular data, wherein booting from the partition occurs prior to OS data being fully retrieved, and competing OS installation via one or more retrievals of data not locally stored. However, Clerc does teach: [during execution of the install program:] identifying, by the computer system, a request [by the OS install program] for particular data from the pseudo-image (Clerc, e.g., ¶32, “When running the client computer (3) in step S7, and when it is determined in step S8 that a specific block of the operating system is required (S8, Yes) …”);
determining, by the computer system, that the requested particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image (Clerc, e.g., ¶33, “If it is determined in step S11 that the requested block is not available on the local disk repository 32 (S11, no) …”); and
in response to determining that the requested particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image, [retrieving the requested particular data] (Clerc, e.g., ¶33, “the streaming device accesses the server system (2) via the initiator in order to download the requested block of the operating system …”) …
wherein booting the computer system from the partition occurs prior to the OS data image being fully retrieved from the remote server, and wherein the OS install program completes installation of an OS represented by the OS data image by performing one or more retrievals of the particular data in response to a determination that the requested particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image (Clerc, e.g., ¶33, “Thereby, parts or blocks of the operating system can be retrieved through the initiator from the server system (2) on demand as they are requested by the bootloader or a part of the operating system that is already installed on the client computer …” See also, e.g., ¶27, “At step S1, the client system (3) is switched on and tries to boot. At step S2, it is determined whether a local bootable disk is available … If a booting from the local disk is possible (S2, YES), then the process moves on to step S7 …” See also, e.g., ¶37, “When the client computer (2) has all the blocks of the operating system it will ever need for normal operation …”) for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Clerc, e.g., ¶¶220-235).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods for remote node configuration and operating system image installation as taught by Adusumilli to provide for identifying a request for particular data from the pseudo-image, determining that the particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image, and in response thereto retrieving the requested particular data, wherein booting from the partition occurs prior to OS data being fully retrieved, and competing OS installation via one or more retrievals of data not locally stored because the disclosure of Clerc shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for streaming and installing an operating system image to a computing device to provide for identifying a request for particular data from the pseudo-image, determining that the particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image, and in response thereto retrieving the requested particular data, wherein booting from the partition occurs prior to OS data being fully retrieved, and competing OS installation via one or more retrievals of data not locally stored for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Clerc, Id.).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that with respect to claim 10, Adusumilli further teaches: A system for optimized operating system (OS) image deployment comprising: a computer system including at least one processor and a memory, and configured to perform operations (Adusumilli, e.g., ¶12, “systems and methods for self-booting and self-imaging a computing node … imaging the computing node using the another operating system …” See also, e.g., ¶15, “Computing node 102 may include processor 104 … memory 106 and instructions 108 … local storage 110 …”) including: [[[the method of claim 1]]]; and with respect to claim 19, Adusumilli further teaches: An article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions thereon that are executable by a processor of a computer system to perform operations for optimized operating system (OS) image deployment (Adusumilli, e.g., ¶12, “systems and methods for self-booting and self-imaging a computing node … imaging the computing node using the another operating system …” See also, e.g., ¶15, “Computing node 102 may include processor 104 … memory 106 and instructions 108 … local storage 110 …”), the operations comprising: [[[the method of claim 1]]].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Clerc further teaches: wherein the request is a first request, and the method further comprising: identifying, by the computer system, a second request by the OS install program for particular data from the pseudo-image; determining, by the computer system, that the particular data requested in the second request is stored in the pseudo-image; and in response to determining that the requested particular data is stored in the pseudo-image, retrieving, by the computer system, the requested particular data from the pseudo-image without accessing the remote server (Clerc, e.g., ¶32, “When running the client computer (3) in step S7, and when it is determined in step S8 that a specific block of the operating system is required (S8, Yes) … streaming device reads the metadata on the local disk repository in step S10 in order to determine whether the specific block of the operating system required by the processor (31) can be retrieved from the local disk repository (32) or not. If it is determined in step S11 that the requested block is available on the local disk repository (32) (S11, Yes), it is retrieved [from] the local disk repository …”).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adusumilli in view of Clerc, and in further view of Nestor, Brian Patrick, U.S. 2003/0041281 A1 (“Nestor”).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Adusumilli in view of Clerc does not more particularly teach that the pseudo-image includes a boot sector, a file allocation table and a root directory region. However, Nestor does teach: wherein the pseudo-image includes a boot sector, a file allocation table, and a root directory region (Nestor, e.g., ¶159, “boot record file 56; file allocation tables 58; and the root directory 60 of the image …”) for the purpose of performing image analysis and retrieving or repairing previous retrievals of image data (Nestor, e.g., ¶¶145-166).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods for remote node configuration and operating system image installation as taught by Adusumilli in view of Clerc to provide that the pseudo-image includes a boot sector, a file allocation table and a root directory region because the disclosure of Nestor shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for binary image data retrieval to provide that the pseudo-image includes a boot sector, a file allocation table and a root directory region for the purpose of performing image analysis and retrieving or repairing previous retrievals of image data (Nestor, Id.).
Claim 12 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adusumilli in view of Clerc, and in further view of Criddle et al., U.S. 2010/0333085 A1 (“Criddle”).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Adusumilli in view of Clerc does not more particularly teach that the pseudo-image includes a cache. However, Criddle does teach: wherein the pseudo-image includes a cache (Criddle, e.g., ¶231, “In an example, a user action comprises clicking on a word processing application shortcut to start the application. However, the virtual application cache contains no boot byte range(s) and/or feature block(s) to boot the application …”) for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored in a cache, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Criddle, e.g., ¶¶220-235).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods for remote node configuration and operating system image installation as taught by Adusumilli in view of Clerc to provide that the pseudo-image includes a cache because the disclosure of Criddle shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for streaming and installing optimized virtual application images to provide that the pseudo-image includes a cache for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored in a cache, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Criddle, Id.).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and Criddle further teaches: wherein determining that the requested particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image includes determining that the requested particular data is not stored in the cache of the pseudo-image (Criddle, e.g., ¶231, “In an example, a user action comprises clicking on a word processing application shortcut to start the application. However, the virtual application cache contains no boot byte range(s) and/or feature block(s) to boot the application …”).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, but Adusumilli in view of Clerc does not more particularly teach that in response to retrieving requested data over the network from the OS data image on the remote server, storing a copy of the requested particular data in the cache of the pseudo-image. However, Criddle does teach: in response to retrieving the requested particular data over the network from the OS data image on the remote server, storing, by the computer system, a copy of the requested particular data in the cache of the pseudo-image (Criddle, e.g., ¶231, “provide a splash screen informing a user that the application is loading while the remaining bytes can be downloaded by the background download system … once all the required virtual application bytes are cached …”) for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored in a cache, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Criddle, e.g., ¶¶220-235).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods for remote node configuration and operating system image installation as taught by Adusumilli in view of Clerc to provide that in response to retrieving requested data over the network from the OS data image on the remote server, storing a copy of the requested particular data in the cache of the pseudo-image because the disclosure of Criddle shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for streaming and installing optimized virtual application images to provide that in response to retrieving requested data over the network from the OS data image on the remote server, storing a copy of the requested particular data in the cache of the pseudo-image for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored in a cache, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Criddle, Id.).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Adusumilli in view of Clerc does not more particularly teach that the request is a first request, and identifying a second request by the OS install program for the particular data from the pseudo-image, and retrieving the copy of the requested particular data from the cache of the pseudo-image. However, Criddle does teach: wherein the request is a first request, and the method further comprising: identifying, by the computer system, a second request by the OS install program for the particular data from the pseudo-image; retrieving, by the computer system, the copy of the requested particular data from the cache of the pseudo-image (Criddle, e.g., ¶225, “if the user action is associated with a mapped scenario or feature block and the corresponding byte ranges are already cached, the client virtualization handler allows the user action to proceed … client virtualization handler has knowledge of prior and current byte range downloads and can also query the virtual application cache … to determine downloaded content …” Examiner’s note: if the byte range is already cached, it is accessed (retrieved) for execution to perform the user action) for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored in a cache, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Criddle, e.g., ¶¶220-235).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods for remote node configuration and operating system image installation as taught by Adusumilli in view of Clerc to provide that the request is a first request, and identifying a second request by the OS install program for the particular data from the pseudo-image, and retrieving the copy of the requested particular data from the cache of the pseudo-image because the disclosure of Criddle shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for streaming and installing optimized virtual application images to provide that the request is a first request, and identifying a second request by the OS install program for the particular data from the pseudo-image, and retrieving the copy of the requested particular data from the cache of the pseudo-image for the purpose of efficiently determining whether a necessary block of operating system or application data is locally stored in a cache, utilizing the locally stored data if so stored, and retrieving it remotely otherwise (Criddle, Id.).
Claims 13-16 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejections of claims 4-7 above.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adusumilli in view of Clerc, and in further view of Sok, Song Woo, U.S. 2015/0212847 A1 (“Sok”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Adusumilli in view of Clerc does not more particularly teach that the request for the particular data from the pseudo-image includes a file path identifying the particular data. However, Sok does teach: wherein the request for the particular data from the pseudo-image includes a file path identifying the particular data (Sok, e.g., ¶¶63-64, “cache layer configuring unit 100 manages a file path, an offset value within the file … a cache block address … read request processing unit 300 inspects whether there is a cache block having identical file and offset information according to a read request …” See also, e.g., ¶72, “If there is no corresponding cache block having identical file and offset information …”) for the purpose of for the purpose of determining whether requested file or data is present in the image cache before taking additional action (Sok, e.g., ¶¶55-78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods for remote node configuration and operating system image installation as taught by Adusumilli in view of Clerc to provide that the request for the particular data from the pseudo-image includes a file path identifying the particular data because the disclosure of Sok shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for managing the cache of a virtual machine image file to provide that the request for the particular data from the pseudo-image includes a file path identifying the particular data for the purpose of determining whether requested file or data is present in the image cache before taking additional action (Sok, Id.).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and Sok further teaches: wherein the pseudo-image includes a cache, and wherein determining that the requested particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image includes determining that the cache of the pseudo-image does not include an entry for the file path identifying the particular data (Sok, e.g., ¶¶63-64, “cache layer configuring unit 100 manages a file path, an offset value within the file … a cache block address … read request processing unit 300 inspects whether there is a cache block having identical file and offset information according to a read request …” See also, e.g., ¶72, “If there is no corresponding cache block having identical file and offset information …”).
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejections of claims 8-9 above.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues: The disclosures of Adusumilli and Criddle fail to teach or suggest at least “wherein booting the computer system from the partition occurs prior to the OS data image being fully retrieved from the remote server, and wherein the OS install program completes installation of an OS represented by the OS data image by performing one or more retrievals of the particular data in response to a determination that the requested particular data is not stored in the pseudo-image” (Resp. at 10-12). Accordingly, the claims are in condition for allowance (id. at 12).
Examiner’s Response: In view of the amendments, Examiner newly cites to Clerc, and maintains the rejections under the new grounds set forth in full above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons, whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529, and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at (571) 272-3708. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. 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.
/Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
