DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 18/700825 filed on 04/12/2024. Claims 1-9 are pending. A preliminary amendment was filed on 04/12/2024 amending claims 1-9.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 has been acknowledged and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the hardware resources HW…” However, in order to be consistent, the examiner suggests amending the claims to remove the “HW” as was done in amended claim 7, which claims 8 and 9 depend upon. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations use 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: “cloud system” and “communication module” in claim 1.
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 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 9, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “a communication module to externally communicate…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 1, the “communication module” is considered a specialized function, such that the “communication module” must disclose the corresponding structure to perform the entire claimed function and an algorithm for the claimed “externally communicate and connect…”. However, the “communication module” is shown as a “blank box” in figures 2-3. The written description does not disclose any structure that actually performs the entire claimed function and that the structure is clearly linked to the functions. The specification merely states that the “communication module” is responsible for external communication and connectivity of the remotely operated system to the outside world (see paragraph 39). To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
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.
Per Federal Register [Vol. 76, No 27, Weds. Feb 9, 2011] guidance, pg. 7167:
The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." This list is not exhaustive and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6
Claims 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “a communication module to externally communicate…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 1, the “communication module” is considered a specialized function, such that the “communication module” must disclose the corresponding structure to perform the entire claimed function and an algorithm for the claimed “externally communicate and connect…”. However, the “communication module” is shown as a “blank box” in figures 2-3. The written description does not disclose any structure that actually performs the entire claimed function and that the structure is clearly linked to the functions. The specification merely states that the “communication module” is responsible for external communication and connectivity of the remotely operated system to the outside world (see paragraph 39). To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. SEE ALSO MPEP 2181: Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. As a result, section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph, limitations will, in some cases, be afforded a more narrow interpretation than a limitation that is not crafted in "means plus function" format.
To overcome this rejection, applicant is encouraged to amend claim 1 with substance equivalent to:
1. A remotely operated system comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor, provide:
an edge-cloud system…
an I/O interface…
a virtualized I/O interface…
a communication module…
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the hardware resources" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the communication module” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat et al. (US 2020/0136906) in view of Quinn et al. (US 7,783,788).
Regarding claim 1, Guim Bernat disclosed:
A remotely operated system (Figure 1 showing a central office 120 operating different end points 160 through the network) comprising:
an edge cloud system (Figure 1, edge cloud 110) including a computing and storage system (Paragraph 31, compute, memory, and storage resources) to run virtualized applications (Paragraph 42, virtual edge instances supporting multiple applications) (Paragraph 42, an edge computing system is configured to fulfill requests and responses for various client endpoints from multiple virtual edge instances. The virtual edge instances support multiple tenants and multiple applications simultaneously, with each virtual edge instance including multiple types of applications);
an I/O interface (Figure 6A, I/O subsystem) to access, control, configure, and operate hardware resources (Paragraph 79, display, other I/O devices, peripherals) of the remotely operated system (Paragraph 22, virtual node that uses modular I/O components. Paragraph 71, Figure 6A each edge compute node 600 includes an I/O subsystem. Paragraph 75, the I/O subsystem facilitates input/output operations with the compute circuitry);
a communication module (Figure 1, base stations 140) to externally communicate and connect the remotely operated system to further systems (Figure 1 showing the base stations connecting the central office to the end points); and
an edge-network (Figure 1, core network) to interconnect different edge-cloud systems (Figure 1, showing multiple end points, each an edge-cloud system) and provide a communication link to the communication module of the remotely operated system (Figure 1, core network providing communications to the base stations through which the different end points connect in order to reach the central office 120).
While Guim Bernat disclosed virtual edge instances that are spanned across different geographic regions, with the instances including I/O subsystems (Paragraphs 41, 75), Guim Bernat did not explicitly disclose a virtualized I/O interface implemented in the edge-cloud system to virtualize the I/O interface and be available inside the edge-cloud system so functions realized in the edge-cloud system only use the virtualized I/O interface.
However, in an analogous art, Quinn disclosed a virtualized I/O interface (Figure 1, virtual I/O servers 60) implemented in the edge-cloud system to virtualize the I/O interface and be available inside the edge-cloud system so functions realized in the edge-cloud system only use the virtualized I/O interface (Column 3, Lines 8-41, Figure 1, having a redundant configuration of two application servers that receive network services from two virtual I/O servers 60. The virtual I/O servers 60 connect to the application servers 102 through the I/O switch fabric to allow shared access to associated modules of the virtual I/O server. The I/O traffic is intercepted and forwarded to the virtual I/O servers (i.e., only use virtualized I/O interface)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Guim Bernat with Quinn because the references involve virtualization of I/O systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
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 virtualized I/O interface of Quinn with the teachings of Guim Bernat in order to allow for enhanced provisioning and control of I/O bandwidth (Quinn, Column 2, Lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
further comprising: a space satellite, an exploration vehicle, or an autonomous guided vehicle with corresponding payloads (Guim Bernat, Paragraph 30, autonomous vehicles. Paragraph 46, utilizing vehicle navigation (i.e., payload)).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
wherein the edge-cloud system provides multi-purpose computing capabilities to the remotely operated system through a virtualized, interconnected computing runtime environment (Guim Bernat Paragraphs 42, 43, the virtual edge instances are spanned across systems of multiple owners at different geographic locations and the edge computing system is adapted for use by multiple tenants in the system, such as functions as a service instanced launched within specific virtual machines specific to each tenant. Figure 1 showing a plurality of different end points with all different capabilities).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
wherein the edge-network shares resources, so virtual networks can be embedded for communication between virtualized applications within an edge-cloud system and between virtualized applications on different edge-cloud systems (Guim Bernat, Paragraph 37, providing virtual edge instances across an edge computing platform to provide compute capabilities and processing in an edge cloud with access to a cloud for higher latency requests. The edge cloud enables coordination of processing among multiple edge nodes for multiple tenants or entities. Paragraph 40, the resources are partitioned (i.e., shared)…and further applied to edge nodes).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
wherein the communication module establishes a bi-directional communication link between different remotely operated systems, so resources of the edge-cloud systems are shareable across remotely operated systems (Guim Bernat, Figure 1, showing the base stations allowing communications to/from the end points. Paragraph 40, the resources are partitioned (i.e., shared)…and further applied to edge nodes).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
wherein the system is configured to host more than one communication module (Guim Bernat, Figure 1, showing multiple base stations).
Regarding claim 7, Guim Bernat disclosed:
A method for handling failures (Paragraph 96, failure predictions) in a remotely operated system, the method comprising:
operating two edge-cloud systems, wherein each edge-cloud system is hosting user/payload applications (Paragraph 38, Figure 2, showing two separate edge nodes each having storage, computing, and services offered to tenants. Paragraph 41, orchestration of multiple applications through the use of containers).
Guim Bernat did not explicitly disclose wherein each edge-cloud system has a pre-defined virtualized I/O interface to one I/O interface and has a standby virtualized I/O interface to at least one further I/O interface; when an I/O interface failure occurs, the edge-cloud system is switched to another working I/O interface; and using the virtualized I/O interfaces to control the hardware resources and to operate payload applications.
However, in an analogous art, Quinn disclosed wherein each edge-cloud system has a pre-defined virtualized I/O interface to one I/O interface and has a standby virtualized I/O interface to at least one further I/O interface (Figure 1, Column 3, Lines 7-17, Lines 42-67, having a redundant configuration of two application servers 102 (i.e., I/O interfaces as they send I/O traffic, see Column 3, Lines 25-30) that receive block storage and network I/O services from two virtual I/O servers 60 (i.e., virtualized I/O interface). The deployment of virtualized I/O servers is for failover capabilities with redundant connections which are used for hot-standby mode. Each switch fabric contains two ports per I/O switch (therefore one port per interface));
when an I/O interface failure occurs, the edge-cloud system is switched to another working I/O interface (Column 11, Lines 40-45, using a heartbeat functionality to allow the application servers 102 to failover to an alternate virtual I/O server in the event of a fabric failure, I/O server failure, or other problems);
using the virtualized I/O interfaces to control the hardware resources and to operate payload applications (Column 3, Lines 8-41, Figure 1, having a redundant configuration of two application servers that receive network services from two virtual I/O servers 60. The virtual I/O servers 60 connect to the application servers 102 through the I/O switch fabric to allow shared access to associated modules of the virtual I/O server. The I/O traffic is intercepted and forwarded to the virtual I/O servers. The intercepted I/O traffic is sent to its destination, either an HBA or a NIC (i.e., hardware resources). Column 12, Lines 55-67, application server includes applications executed in user space).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Guim Bernat with Quinn because the references involve virtualization of I/O systems, and as such, are within the same environment.
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 virtualized I/O interface of Quinn with the teachings of Guim Bernat in order to allow for enhanced provisioning and control of I/O bandwidth (Quinn, Column 2, Lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
wherein the edge-cloud system in an environment with at least two active remotely operated systems (Guim Bernat, Figure 1, showing a plurality of end points that are remotely controlled through the central office);
each remotely operated system comprises at least two edge-cloud systems running (Guim Bernat, Paragraph 38, Figure 2, showing two separate edge nodes each having storage, computing, and services offered to tenants. Paragraph 41, orchestration of multiple applications through the use of containers), wherein each edge-cloud system has a pre-defined virtualized I/O interface to one I/O interface and has a standby and has a standby virtualized I/O interface to at least one further I/O interface (Quinn, Figure 1, Column 3, Lines 7-17, Lines 42-67, having a redundant configuration of two application servers 102 (i.e., I/O interfaces as they send I/O traffic, see Column 3, Lines 25-30) that receive block storage and network I/O services from two virtual I/O servers 60 (i.e., virtualized I/O interface). The deployment of virtualized I/O servers is for failover capabilities with redundant connections which are used for hot-standby mode. Each switch fabric contains two ports per I/O switch (therefore one port per interface));
the method further comprising: using the virtualized I/O interfaces to control the hardware resources and to operate payload applications (Quinn, Column 3, Lines 8-41, Figure 1, having a redundant configuration of two application servers that receive network services from two virtual I/O servers 60. The virtual I/O servers 60 connect to the application servers 102 through the I/O switch fabric to allow shared access to associated modules of the virtual I/O server. The I/O traffic is intercepted and forwarded to the virtual I/O servers. The intercepted I/O traffic is sent to its destination, either an HBA or a NIC (i.e., hardware resources). Column 12, Lines 55-67, application server includes applications executed in user space);
in case of failure of an edge-cloud system of a remotely operated system payload applications of that edge-cloud system are re-distributed across active edge-cloud systems of another remotely operated systems (Quinn, Column 3, Lines 42-60, load balancing capabilities due to failover and redundant connections. Providing failover capabilities when one I/O fabric interface connection or switch fails and load balancing between I/O switch fabrics).
For motivation, please refer to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed. Guim Bernat and Quinn disclosed:
wherein the system is designed for payload usage across a first remotely operated system and second remotely operated system (Quinn, Column 3, Lines 47-55, full redundancy across multiple I/O switch fabrics);
the first remotely operated system comprises a first payload, that is not available on the second remotely operated system, and a corresponding first payload application running on the first remotely operated system (Quinn, Figure 1, showing application servers 102a having applications therein. Column 7, Lines 20-26, even though two application servers are connected they do not have access to each other’s data. Being that the 102a’s are application servers, they have applications (i.e., payload) on them);
connecting both remotely operated systems via the communication module to deploy on-demand edge-networks between the edge-cloud systems of both remotely operated systems (Quinn, Column 3, Lines 12-17, Figure 1, one or more switches (i.e., communication module) implement an I/O switch fabric interconnecting application servers 102a-c and virtual I/O servers 60a-b. Column 3, Lines 18-29, the virtual I/O server provides storage and external network needs of the application servers connected to the I/O switch fabric, and therefore, is considered an on-demand edge network as the connection is made through the switch fabric);
using the virtualized I/O interfaces to control the hardware resources HW and to operate payload applications (Quinn, Column 3, Lines 8-41, Figure 1, having a redundant configuration of two application servers that receive network services from two virtual I/O servers 60. The virtual I/O servers 60 connect to the application servers 102 through the I/O switch fabric to allow shared access to associated modules of the virtual I/O server. The I/O traffic is intercepted and forwarded to the virtual I/O servers. The intercepted I/O traffic is sent to its destination, either an HBA or a NIC (i.e., hardware resources). Column 12, Lines 55-67, application server includes applications executed in user space);
deploying the second payload application through the edge-cloud systems to the first remotely operated system and after startup, the first payload is accessible to the second payload application (Quinn, Column 3, Lines 42-60, load balancing (i.e., sending payloads to different systems) capabilities due to failover and redundant connections. Providing failover capabilities when one I/O fabric interface connection or switch fails and load balancing between I/O switch fabrics. Column 4, Lines 35-50, having the application server boot its kernel from the virtual I/O server).
For motivation, please refer to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451