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 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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “registry configured to store”, “mapper configured to check/add” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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 (Para 78, registry as storage) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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.
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.
Claim limitation “mapper configured to check/add” 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
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)(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, 3-5, 7, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dinechin (US-20240386115).
a. Referring to claims 1, 12, 14, 15 and 18-20:
Regarding claims 1, 12, 14, 15 and 18-20, Dinechin teaches a method, comprising: transmitting a query from a platform to a container registry (Para 42…. message to a container registry to download a container image); receiving a software container image as responsive data transmitted from the container registry to the platform, the software container image being encrypted (Para 42 and 43…. receiving encrypted container image); using the platform to obtain key material from the software container to decrypt the software container image, a device mapper implemented with the platform being configured to check data integrity of the software container image (Para 43…. decryption key for the container and integrity attestation for the container); and using a container runtime to mount the software container image after being decrypted by a kernel, the platform directing the container runtime and the kernel to decrypt the software container image (Para 43 and 44… container runtime to mount the container image after decryption).
a. Referring to claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, Dinechin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the container registry is a repository configured to store the software container image (Para 27… container repository).
a. Referring to claim 4:
Regarding claim 4, Dinechin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the software container image is encrypted using a device mapper (Para 32 and 46…. device mapper).
a. Referring to claims 5 and 13:
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Dinechin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the software container image is annotated with a dm-verity hash table (Para 46… dm-verity hash tree).
a. Referring to claim 7:
Regarding claim 7, Dinechin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising executing the software container image after decrypting the software container image (Para 46…. initiating/executing the container after decryption).
a. Referring to claim 16:
Regarding claim 16, Dinechin teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the container runtime is containerd (Para 29 and 30…. VM-based container runtime).
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 2, 6, 8-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinechin (US-20240386115), and further in view of Clerget (USPAT-11,055,428).
a. Referring to claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, Dinechin teaches the software container image of claim 1 but fails to teach an OCI standard for the formatting. However, formatting a container image using a OCI standard is well known in the art and described by Clerget in Col 10, Line 21-30 (OCI standard format for containers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinechin’s teaching by using OCI standard to fomat the container image as taught by Clerget for the purpose of increasing wide adoption by establishing vendor-neutral specification for containers,
a. Referring to claims 6 and 17:
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combination of Dinechin and Clerget teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the file system is SquashFS (See Clerget, Col 11, Line 1-3).
a. Referring to claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dinechin and Clerget teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising decompressing the software container image using the kernel (See Clerget, Col 10, Line 55-65… decompression).
a. Referring to claim 9:
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dinechin and Clerget teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising decompressing the software container image using the kernel and transmitting another request to the platform if the device mapper detects a change to the data integrity when the software container image is decrypted (See the rejection in claims 1 and 8… requesting another container image if container fails integrity check).
a. Referring to claim 10:
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dinechin and Clerget teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the platform transmits a signal to not mount the software container image if the file format is not recognized by the container runtime (See Clerget, Col 5, Line 30-51…. mount encrypted and unencrypted container image based on different file formats. Unencrypted container images are not mounted in the same path as encrypted).
a. Referring to claim 11:
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dinechin and Clerget teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the platform transmits a signal to mount the software container image and execute the container runtime if the file format is recognized by the platform (See Clerget, Col 5, Line 30-51…. mount encrypted and unencrypted container image based on different file formats. Encrypted container images are mounted in the same path).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
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, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights