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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on May 5, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Brief Description of the Drawings, Figures 1(a) and 1(b) should be described separately.
In paragraph [0034], line 9, “three” should be – there --.
In paragraph [0040], line 2, “800” should be – 600 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-16 are objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 9, line 1, -- non-transitory – should be inserted before “computer-readable storage medium”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 5 and 13, line 3, “the user identifier” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brady et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0114034).
Regarding claim 1, Brady teaches a user-based service isolation method, including: in response to login of a target user (Paragraph [0019], “[a] usage session refers to the timespan beginning when one or more users begin to use the computing device”), constructing a user object corresponding to the target user, and constructing a service container to, bind the user object to the service container (Paragraph [0042], “[t]he access mode determination module 114 can identify particular users … and determine whether to run a usage session in a container”) and create, in the service container, a service instance corresponding to the target user (Paragraph [0031], “[t]he content generated during operation of the container 120 refers to various data or information generated by or used by an application running in the container 120”); and in response to logout of the target user, destroying the user object and the service container (Paragraph [0031], “[t]he content generated during operation of the container 120 is deleted when the usage session associated with the container 120 ends.”).
Regarding claim 2, Brady teaches attribute data of the user object includes at least a user identifier of the target user (Paragraph [0042], “[t]he access mode determination module 114 can identify particular users).
Regarding claim 3, Brady teaches wherein the service instance comprises a user interface component and/or a service logic component (Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Brady teaches in response to destruction of the service container, releasing the service instance corresponding to the target user (Paragraph [0031], “[t]he content generated during operation of the container 120 is deleted when the usage session associated with the container 120 ends.”).
Regarding claim 8, Brady further teaches constructing a plurality of objects respectively corresponding to a plurality of users, and constructing a plurality of containers to respectively bind the plurality of objects to the plurality of containers, and respectively create, in the plurality of containers, service instances respectively corresponding to the plurality of users (See paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 16, these are the computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to method claims 1-4 and 8 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 17-20, these are the electronic device claims corresponding to method claims 1-4 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0114034) in view of Chen et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0403306).
Regarding claims 5-7, Brady does not mention the specifics of a target user compared to a current user as claimed. Chen teaches in Figures 4A and 6 that after a target user (614) logs in, if a target interface (102) of a pre-running global service instance is invoked (through 444), transmitting the user identifier of the target user to the target interface (i.e., when user 614 is performing operations 602 and 604); and the target interface determining, according to a user identifier of a current user corresponding to the global service instance and the user identifier of the target user (614, when the target user accesses the application at a later time and becomes the current user), whether the current user corresponding to the global service instance is correct (i.e. the security manager determines if the current user 614 is the target user that is allowed to perform operations 602 and 604). If the user identifier of the current user corresponding to the global service instance is the same as the user identifier of the target user, determining that the current user is correct (i.e. the service manager allows access privileges). If the current user is incorrect, the target interface throwing a prompt of the current user being incorrect (i.e., the security manager will not allow access). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide the method of Brady with the security features as taught by Chen. The rationale is as follows: One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the method of Brady with the security features as taught by Chen in order to make sure that the current user only has usage permissions that are allowed by the security manager.
Regarding claims 13-15, these are the computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to method claims 5-7 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0103550) and Walsh et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0330469) are cited to show isolation methods using service containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KORZUCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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 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.
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights