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 .
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 18-20, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordetsky et al. (US 2010/0332320) in view of Binder et al. (2023/0130746).
With respect to claim 18, Mordetsky discloses: determining, in response to receiving a verification request from a host, a processing result according to the verification request; wherein the verification request comprises host information related to the host, and the processing result represents whether the host information meets a predetermined condition (Fig. 3 “310”, “330”, [0034], [0035]); and
outputting the processing result to the host, so that the host determines a verification result of an application to be started in the host based on the processing result, and starts the application and runs the application in a case that the verification result is a pass (Fig. 3, [0036]- [0041]).
Mordetsky does not specifically disclose an application in a container.
However, Binder discloses an application in a container ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Binder to use policy-driven attestation to decide not only whether a container may run, but also how it may run on Mordestsky’s host device, ensuring the container workloads are not malicious and are trustworthy.
With respect to claim 19, Mordetsky discloses: wherein the host information comprises device fingerprint information of the host; the processing result comprises at least one of: a first processing result representing whether a fingerprint record is consistent with the device fingerprint information, and a second processing result representing whether an authorization validity period of the host is in a valid state; the verification result comprises at least one of: a fingerprint verification sub- result and a validity period verification sub-result ([0035]).
With respect to claims 1, 25, 26, 28, and 29, they recite similar limitations as claim 18 and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Mordetsky discloses: wherein the host information comprises at least one sub-information selected from: a number of containers that have been started in the host, first image information of a container image in the host, device fingerprint information of the host and an authorization validity period of the host ([0035]); the predetermined condition comprises at least one of: a quantitative sub-condition corresponding to the number of containers, an image sub- condition corresponding to the first image information, a fingerprint sub-condition corresponding to the device fingerprint information and a validity period sub-condition corresponding to the authorization validity period; and the determining whether the host information meets a predetermined condition to obtain a verification result of a container to be started in the host comprises:determining whether the at least one sub-information meets respective corresponding sub-condition to obtain at least one verification sub-result corresponding to the at least one sub-information; and determining the verification result according to the at least one verification sub- result (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 3, Mordetsky discloses: wherein the fingerprint sub-condition comprises that a fingerprint record is consistent with the device fingerprint information (Fig. 3 “330”).
With respect to claim 4, Mordetsky discloses: wherein the determining whether the at least one sub-information meets respective corresponding sub-condition to obtain at least one verification sub-result corresponding to the at least one sub-information comprises:sending, in a case that the host is in an online state, a fingerprint verification request comprising the device fingerprint information to a credit platform, so that the credit platform determines a first processing result representing whether the fingerprint record is consistent with the device fingerprint information; and determining, in response to receiving the first processing result from the credit platform, a fingerprint verification sub-result of the verification result according to the first processing result (Fig. 3, “330”, “340”, “350”, “360”).
With respect to claim 8, Mordetsky discloses: wherein the validity period sub-condition comprises that the authorization validity period is in a valid state ([0035]).
With respect to claim 9, Mordetsky discloses: wherein the determining whether the at least one sub-information meets respective corresponding sub-condition to obtain at least one verification sub-result corresponding to the at least one sub-information comprises:sending, in a case that the host is in an online state, a fingerprint verification request comprising the device fingerprint information to a credit platform, so that the credit platform determines a second processing result representing whether the authorization validity period is in the valid state; and determining, in response to receiving the second processing result from the credit platform, a validity period verification sub-result of the verification result according to the second processing result (Fig. 3, “330”-“360”).
With respect to claim 14 Mordetsky discloses:determining the device fingerprint information according to at least one of a host identifier, disk information, mainboard information, CPU information and network card information, wherein the determining the device fingerprint information according to at least one of a host identifier, disk information, mainboard information, CPU information and network card information comprises: determining an initial string according to at least one of the host identifier, the disk information, the mainboard information, the CPU information and the network card information; and encrypting the initial string to obtain the device fingerprint information ([0055], [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in any reasonable combination does not disclose reading a local license file when a host is in an offline state by acquiring the license file from a credit platform. Thereafter, parsing and obtaining a fingerprint record from the license file while the host is offline and determining whether the fingerprint record is consistent with the device fingerprint information to obtain fingerprint verification sub result of the verification result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kilian-Kehr et al. (US 7818585): A host computer runs in a trusted state. A license manager is installed on the host computer. The license manager is configured to provide access to one or more software programs. The one or more software programs are accessible only through the license manager. The license manager is bound to the trusted state of the host computer, such that if the trusted state ceases to exist, then the license manager is not executable and the one or more software programs are not accessible. The host computer can be a TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) enabled computer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights