DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“the game server is configured to” to perform the virtual computer-implemented function “sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code” in Claim 1
“a sandbox responsible for” to perform the virtual computer-implemented function “running third-party code within the game server,” in Claim 1.
“a sandbox of a first node of the one or more nodes is configured to” to perform the software-implemented function “run at least two pieces of third party code,” in Claim 2
“the sandbox of the first node is configured to” to perform the software-implemented function “run one of the at least two pieces of third-party code at a time with a next piece of code running after a previous piece of code is completed” in Claim 2.
“an intrusion detector configured to” perform the software-implemented function “detecting unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container” in Claim 8.
“the intrusion detector configured to” perform the software-implemented function “take corrective action in response to detecting unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container, wherein the corrective action comprises terminating the virtual machine or other container” in Claim 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover statutory and non-statutory embodiments and embraces subject matter not eligible for patent protection. For instance, a game server may be construed as a “virtual machine” which does not have a physical or tangible form and is claimed without any structural recitations (see Ignatchenko, 2024/0390801 A1- Fig. 2, 0020- game server 210 may comprise or include other mechanisms for electronically processing information; 0034, 0036-0037 – wherein various implementations comprise a virtual machine approach, 0085, wherein the interface may include one or more physical and/or virtual interfaces). The remaining limitations such as “a simulator to modify a simulator state…as a result of time passing” and “one or more nodes each comprising a sandbox responsible for running third-party code…manipulate an external state via an application programming interface (API)” are directed to computer programs that do not have a physical or tangible form which is not directed to any of the statutory categories (see Ignatchenko, Fig 2, 0035-0037). It follows that the game server of 200 of the claimed system may be interpreted as being directed to virtual machines. For at least these reasons, claims 1-10 are found to be directed to include non-statutory embodiments and are software per se (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites the limitation “the game server is configured to sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code” and “one or more nodes each comprising a sandbox responsible for running third-party code within the game server”. However, these limitations are not adequately described in the specification in such a way to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, the Specification fails to adequately describe how the inventor intended to determine, analyze, and/or configure a game server to achieve the claimed function: “sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code”. While the claimed components are shown in Fig. 2 which include “one or more nodes” containing “a sandbox” intended for running third-party code/event-driven code via an application programming interface (API) for one instance of a universal game server 210, it fails to provide any particular algorithm and/or adequately describe these components in a sufficient manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to use and perform these computer-implemented functions to sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code. Furthermore, while the Specification discloses “one or more nodes” comprise “a sandbox responsible for running third-party code” it does not provide any description as to the interrelationship between a simulator” and “one or more nodes each comprising a sandbox” to accomplish the claimed function to “sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code”. At best, the Specification describes an intended result of the game server as the solution to address the problem of security and resource consumption that might occur associated with “third-party code” running on a game server but fails to adequately describe the invention with sufficient detail as to how the inventor intended to achieve the function and modify a general server into the claimed game server to “sandbox” by the “one or more nodes comprising a sandbox”. For instance, paragraphs [0039]-[0042] disclose a sandbox may be configured to impose resource requirements and implemented using VM/container-provided technologies” on the code but fails to show how the sandbox is configured to impose resource requirements using VM/container-provided technologies to achieve the claimed solution/function (e.g., sandbox). Stated differently, the disclosure of Fig. 2, shows one instance of code components but does not provide disclosure for breadth of the claimed subject matter or provide the corresponding software and/or algorithm of the software components to perform the virtual computer-implemented function in order to adequately describe claimed subject matter. There does not appear disclose of a particular implementation of how the inventor intended achieve a general purpose computer with the claimed appropriate programming and/or claimed software to accomplish the specific software functions. Similarly, in paragraph [0052] the Specification states the desired result of the invention such that “third party code 244 may be run within a sandbox 242 and may be prevented from making potentially malicious system calls and/or may have its usage of resources monitored and/or restrictions”. However, it fails to adequately describe to one of ordinary skill in the art how the claimed software functions of the “game server” may be configured to “sandbox potentially malicious event-drive code” or how “one or more nodes comprising a sandbox” is configured such that it may perform the specific function “responsible for running third-party code within the game server” as recited in Claim 1. Stated differently, the claims lack adequate written description because the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but does not adequately describe, provide the particular steps/procedure of the claimed computer implemented functions with sufficient detail to show how the functions and/or the interrelationship between of the software components and virtual machine components are achieved by the inventor to show possession of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2106.01). It follows that the claimed subject matter is not found to be adequately described to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter to demonstrate that the inventor had possession to the breadth of the claimed subject matter.
Secondly, the limitation “an intrusion detector configured to take corrective action in response to detecting unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container” of Claims 8-9 are not found to be adequately described to show possession of the claimed invention. Although the Specification provides a general statement for a desired result for an intrusion detector it fails to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved (see Specification, 0037). A review of the Specification simply restates the function for a desired result but fails to adequately describe the interrelationship and interdependence of a simulator, a sandbox, an API, game server/virtual machine/container, software and/or the intrusion detector to provide sufficient details as to how the inventor intended to review, analyze, and/or detect the third party code within the game server/VM/container to satisfy the written description requirement (see MPEP 2161.01). Moreover, the Specification does not appear to provide the necessary steps to achieve the claimed function related to a complex and unpredictable computing art in order to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art how the inventor intended to achieve the claimed function. For at least these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement to adequately and sufficiently describe the claimed invention.
Additionally, when a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). For at least this reasons, claims 1-10 are found to lack adequate written description as containing limitations that are being interpreted under 112(f) for reasons provided below.
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 1-10 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.
The term “potentially malicious event-driven code” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “potentially malicious” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the metes and bounds of the invention.
The limitations “configured to sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code” and “one or more nodes each comprising a sandbox responsible for running third-party code within the game server, wherein the third-party code is event-driven in that it may only receive and react to events” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The claim term “sandbox” is used both as a verb and a noun which renders the claim unclear as to whether “a sandbox responsible for running third-party code within the game server” is the same and/or different sandbox to perform the computer-implemented function of the game server to “sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “a sandbox of a first node” renders the claim unclear as to whether it is the same and/or different as “a sandbox” as previously recited in claim 1 responsible for running third-party code within the game server.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10, which have been interpreted under 112(f) are found to be indefinite for failing to clearly link or associate the particular structure, material or acts to the claimed function. The Specification has not provided a corresponding algorithm and/or the corresponding structure associated with the computer-implemented functions performed by a game server, a simulator, and/or one or more nodes comprising a sandbox to: i) “sandbox potentially malicious event-drive code”; ii) “modify a simulator state and a published state based on input received or as a result of time passing”; and iii) the function “responsible for perform the running third-party code within the game server”, respectively. It follows that the claims are found to be indefinite for failing to disclose the corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the Specification that performs the entire claimed function. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to be indefinite as they fail to provide the particular structure to clearly linked or associate the structure, material or act to the claimed function (see MPEP 2181B- C). For at least these reasons, claims 1-7 and 10 are found to be indefinite.
Regarding claims 8-9, which have been interpreted under 112(f) are found to be indefinite for failing to clearly link or associated the particular structure, material or acts to the claimed function. The Specification fails and/or adequately describe a corresponding algorithm and/or the corresponding structure associated with the computer-implemented function of “an intrusion detector” configured to “detect unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container”. It follows that the claims are found to be indefinite for failing to disclose the corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the Specification that performs the entire claimed function. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to be indefinite as they fail to provide the particular structure to clearly link or associate the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function (see MPEP 2181B-C). For at least these reasons, claims 8-9 are found to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colenbrander (US 2024/0115957 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Colenbrander discloses a game server for providing updates related to an online game (see Colenbrander, Figs. 1-2, 0027-0031, wherein system 100 and 200 illustrate a game cloud system which is a server for providing updates related to an online game), wherein the game server is configured to sandbox potentially malicious event-driven code (see Colenbrander, Fig. 3, 0012 – wherein the systems determine whether the mods include malicious code and protect the games from the malicious code; 0050, wherein the game cloud system 302 comprises an isolated server system 302 to sandbox modifications of an event driven game program which is construed as potentially malicious event-drive code), the game server comprising:
a simulator configured to modify a simulator state and a published state based on input received or as a result of time passing (see Colenbrander, Fig. 3A-4, 0008, 0011, 0035-0039)wherein the system 302 includes a mod interface 306 to modify a simulator state and the game instance 304 generates data for displaying one or more virtual scenes of the video game which is analogous to a publish a state of a computer game program (e.g., World of Warcraft, Fortnite, Apex Legends) based on input received or as a result of time passing); one or more nodes each comprising a sandbox responsible for running third-party code within the game server (see Colenbrander, Fig. 3B, 0039, 0042, wherein the code is provided by a microservice coder, developer, or creator; 0049-0051, wherein the mod interface does not allow the modification microservice 1-n are stored in one or more memory devices isolated server system or virtual machine of the game cloud system to provides a sandbox responsible executing the modification microservice n), wherein the third-party code is event-driven in that it may only receive and react to events (see Colenbrander, Fig. 5A-5E, 0055-0058, wherein the modification stored in the microservice n may only receive and react to API calls from the game instance of the server system), and wherein the third-party code may only manipulate an external state via an application programming interface (API) (see Colenbrander, Fig. 3A-4, 0059-0062, 0065-0072 wherein the code stored in MS1-MS10 may only manipulate an external state through API via calls of the API processor of the mod interface).
Regarding claim 10, Colenbrander discloses the game server of claim 1, wherein the third-party code run on the game server includes base assets corresponding to a version of an online game provided by a publisher of the online game and one or more overridden assets that comprise base assets that have been modified by a user (see Colanbrander, Fig. 1-4, 0031-0031, 0034-0039, 0042, 0047; wherein the game logic is a version of an online game provided by a publisher of the online game and one or more modifications stored in the modification microservice n stores one or more overridden assets that comprise base assets that have been modified by a user), wherein the game server runs a modified version of the online game when running using the one or more overridden assets (see Colenbrader, Figs. 3A-4, 0047 – wherein the modification adds extra physics calculation, adds state information, new virtual weapons, new maps, and/or extra lighting or the flow of virtual water; 0073, wherein the microservices provide modifications such as running a modified version of the game using additional or extra lighting to the frame which is analogous to using one or more overridden assets of the base game).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gadd (US 2024/0330029 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Colenbrander discloses the game server of claim 1, wherein a sandbox of a first node of the one or more nodes is configured to run at least two pieces of third-party code, wherein the sandbox of the first node is configured to run one of the at least two pieces of third-party code at a time with a next piece of code running after a previous piece of code is completed (see Colenbrander, Fig. 1-4, 0039-0041, wherein the 0050, wherein the microservice n such as MS 1-10 are representative of a sandbox of a first node of the one or more nodes that are capable to run at least two pieces of third-party code, wherein the sandbox of the first node is capable to run one of the at least two pieces of third-party code at a time with a next piece of code running after a previous piece of third-party code is completed via the game-cloud system; 0092-0103, wherein the system 530 represents running code by the microservice n system to provide and generate a different external state such as frame y+1 and z+1). If the sandbox of the first node of the one or more nodes is not found to be capable of running at least two pieces of code at a time with a next piece of code running after the previous piece of third-party code is completed, the prior art of Gadd teaches that methods to execute code may be processed in a limited subset of methods such as serialization, parallel, and/or a combination of the two (see Gadd, 0031). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application would have been motivated to incorporate the technique of Gadd’s serial code processing as one of a limited set available to techniques to execute instructions in the computer code which would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the computing arts. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein a sandbox of a first node of the one or more nodes is configured to run at least two pieces of third-party code, wherein the sandbox of the first node is configured to run one of the at least two pieces of third-party code at a time with a next piece of code running after a previous piece of code is completed.
Regarding claim 3, Colenbrander anticipates and/or in the alternative, the combination of Colenbrander and Gadd obviates the game server of claim 2. The prior art of Colenbrander anticipates and/or in the alternative, the combination of Colenbrander and Gadd obviate wherein each of the at least two pieces of third-party code uses a different external state (see Colenbrander, 0092-0103 – wherein the modification executed by one of MS 1-10 for frame y+1 and z+1 are directed to a different external frame state).
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.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colenbrander as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Gadd (US 2024/0330029 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Colenbrander discloses the game server of claim 1, wherein the third-party code is run by a game engine over one or more web servers, web services, and one or more websites for microservices from clients or microservices in a virtual environment (see Colenbrader, 5A, 0033-0037, 0116) but is silent with respect to a programming language engine.
In a related virtual machine sandbox system, Gadd teaches a sandbox execution environment for web based application that is implemented with a programming language (e.g., WebAssembly - which is a high-level programming language) to provide safety checks for code executed on a runtime engine (e.g., a WASM runtime engine/virtual machine) (see Gadd, Fig. 1, 0021-0023, 0031). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gadd’s programming language engine to use known techniques in web-based computing environments to reduce the computational burden and reduce resources that impede testing and debugging with web-based applications (see Gadd, 0002). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to incorporate the teachings of Gadd with the game cloud computing system of Colenbrander wherein the third-party code is a programming language engine.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Colenbrander and Gadd teach the game server of claim 4, wherein the programming language engine comprises a WebAssembly (WASM) engine (see Gadd, Fig. 1, 0021-0023, 0031).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Colenbrander and Gadd teach the game server of claim 4, wherein the programming language engine comprises an interpreter or Just-in-time(JIT) compiler of a programming language (see Gadd, Fig. 1, 0021-0023, wherein the programming language is WebAssembly).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Colenbrander and Gadd teach the game server of claim 6, wherein the interpreter or Just-in-time (JIT) compiler is run within a virtual machine or other container (see Colenbrander, 0033, Gadd, Fig. 1, 0021-0023).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colenbrander and Gadd as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ghosh (US 2013/0145463 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Colenbrander and Gadd teach the game server of claim 7. However, the combination is silent wherein the virtual machine or other container includes an intrusion detector configured to detect unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container.
Ghosh teaches a sandbox protection system for detecting malicious content or anomalous behavior within the sandbox environment of gaming programs from unverified third-parties, programs, and/or untrusted websites (see Ghosh, abstract, 0024, 0036, 0039). Specifically, Ghosh teaches an intrusion detector configured to detect unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container (see Ghosh, 0027, 0030-0032, wherein the control module includes an event engine module that is a rule based event engine that determines if an event executed is an infection (e.g., a malware). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ghosh intrusion detector in order to use known techniques to yield the predictable result to provide a safety mechanism for unverified third-party programs, programs, and/or website applications (see Ghosh, 0003-0004, 0013). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the virtual machine or other container includes an intrusion detector configured to detect unusual activity within the virtual machine or other container.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Colenbrander, Gadd, and Ghosh teach the game server of claim 8. The combination further teach, wherein the intrusion detector is configured to take corrective action in response to detecting unusual activity wherein the virtual machine or other container, wherein the corrective action comprises terminating the virtual machine or other container (see Ghosh, 0027, 0036, wherein terminating the sandbox environment is analogous to terminating a virtual machine or container; 0046, wherein the protection system can terminate and/or kill any suspect process that are detected; 0085, 0089).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715