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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/779065 filed on 07/21/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required bye M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 01/17/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 201.15.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 07/27/2026, 03/12/2026 and 07/21/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: under ”related Application” section, the status of U.S Patent Application No. 18/239133 now is patented need to be updated.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Initially, it should be noted that the present application and Application No. 12/427,090, have the same inventive entity. The assignee for both applications is IBM Corporation.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 and 9 of U.S Patent No. 12730662. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Initially, it should be noted that the present application and U.S Patent No. 12730662, have the same inventive entity. The assignee for both applications is Mediatek Inc.
Instant Application
U.S patent 12730662
1. A virtual machine (VM) operating system (OS) configuration system, comprising:
a processor, arranged to execute:
a host VM, arranged to generate a driving signal for driving a booting of a guest VM;
a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering installation of a descriptor;
a descriptor provider, comprising the descriptor, and arranged to install the descriptor into a protected memory according to the first trigger signal; and
the guest VM, wherein an OS of the guest VM is configured according to the descriptor.
4. The VM OS configuration system of claim 1, wherein the host VM comprises:
a VM monitor, arranged to generate a monitor signal in response to the guest VM being required to be generated; and
an OS driver, arranged to generate the driving signal according to the monitor signal.
6. The VM OS configuration system of claim 1, wherein the hypervisor comprises:
a pre-booting manager, arranged to:
generate the first trigger signal according to the driving signal; and
after the installation of the descriptor is completed, generate a second trigger signal for triggering the booting of the guest VM; and
a booting manager, arranged to perform the booting of the guest VM according to the second trigger signal.
8. A non-transitory machine-readable medium for storing a program code, wherein when loaded and executed by a processor, the program code instructs the processor to execute:
a host VM, arranged to generate a driving signal for driving a booting of a guest VM;
a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering installation of a descriptor;
a descriptor provider, comprising the descriptor, and arranged to install the descriptor into a protected memory according to the first trigger signal; and
the guest VM, wherein an OS of the guest VM is configured according to the descriptor.
1. A virtual machine (VM) operating system (OS) configuration system, comprising:
a processor, arranged to execute:
a host VM, arranged to generate a driving signal for driving a booting of a guest VM;
a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering verification of a descriptor;
a root module,
arranged to verify the descriptor according to the first trigger signal to generate a verified descriptor, and store the verified descriptor in a protected memory; and
the guest VM, comprising:
a boot loader, arranged to perform a check operation upon the verified descriptor, to generate a checked descriptor, wherein in response to the checked descriptor not existing an error, at least one security-associated node is added to the descriptor in order to generate the checked descriptor, for configuring the OS of the guest VM.
3. The VM OS configuration system of claim 1, wherein the host VM comprises:
a VM monitor, arranged to generate a monitor signal in response to the guest VM being required to be generated; and an OS driver, arranged to generate the driving signal according to the monitor signal.
5. The VM OS configuration system of claim 1, wherein the hypervisor comprises:
a pre-booting manager, arranged to: generate the first trigger signal according to the driving signal; and
after the verification of the descriptor is completed, generate a second trigger signal for triggering the booting of the guest VM; and
a booting manager, arranged to perform the booting of the guest VM according to the second trigger signal.
9. A non-transitory machine-readable medium for storing a program code, wherein when loaded and executed by a processor, the program code instructs the processor to execute:
a host VM, arranged to generate a driving signal for driving a booting of a guest VM;
a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering verification of a descriptor;
a root module, arranged to verify the descriptor according to the first trigger signal to generate a verified descriptor, and store the verified descriptor in a protected memory; and
the guest VM comprising: a boot loader, arranged to perform a check operation upon the verified descriptor, to generate a checked descriptor, wherein in response to the checked descriptor not existing an error, at least one security-associated node is added to the descriptor in order to generate the checked descriptor, for configuring the OS of the guest VM.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10 and 15 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2017/0262214 to Venkatesh
In one embodiment, pool VM 250 includes a number of processing modules, which may be implemented as hardware, software, firmware, or a combination, such as network interface 254, configuration negotiator 256, pool protocol message processor 256, pool manager 260, policy manager 270, and memory manager 262 which includes memory management table 264.
US 2017/0118249 to Motukuru
the security information is baked into the dynamically generated agent binaries and/or a service virtual machine (e.g., the gent may be a part of a business application or service, which is deployed as a virtual vachine) At step 225, on startup of the platform or environment in which the agent resides (e.g., Windows, Linux, Mac, etc.), the agent initializes using artifacts from the baked in file, connects to the provisioning infrastructure through a standard or default port, and downloads a configuration file from a security agent service (e.g., agent service 145 of FIG. 1) to update the agent's configuration automatically.
US 2012/0174093 to Davila
the software platform includes at least one virtual machine, an application container and a platform runtime. In a number of embodiments, the playback device includes a platform installer that enables the playback device to discover and download a software platform configuration specific to the device or to a class of devices to which the device belongs from a configuration management serve
US 2010/0070319 to Prafullchandra
Policy and criteria are made available and can be configured for each of the supported virtualization platform and virtual machine operating systems. It is important to note that different virtual machine operating systems (such as Windows and Linux) may require significantly different policies and criteria.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10 and 12.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0266938 to Suzuki in further view of US 2020/0167176 to Arroyo et al. (hereafter “Arroyo”), US 2008/0059804 to Shah et al. (hereafter “Shah”), and US 2011/0154325 to Terasaki.
As per claim 1, Suzuki discloses A virtual machine (VM) operating system (OS) configuration system (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0006 and 0046), comprising:
a processor (FIG. 1; paragraph 0043: computing unit 11b), arranged to execute:
a host VM (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0006 and 0046: “When a plurality of virtual machines are deployed on a single physical machine, it is possible to have a virtual machine dedicated to management purposes (referred to as a “management OS” or a “host OS”) manage access to devices by other virtual machines (sometimes referred to as “guest OSs”).” [Wingdings font/0xE0] host OS aka. Host virtual machine), arranged to generate a driving signal for driving a booting of a guest VM (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0046, 0068 and 0103: “The virtual machines 13 and 13a are virtual computers that independently run OSs. The virtual machine 13 runs a host OS. The host OS manages the resources of the hardware 11 and performs management tasks such as starting and stopping an OS (also referred to as a “guest OS”) running on another virtual machine, such as the virtual machine 13a.” and “Note that in this situation, since one virtual machine is sufficient to provide services, it is possible to use a method that starts the virtual machine 150 in a state where updated software has been installed in the virtual machine 150 and then removes the virtual machine 140.”).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering installation of a descriptor;
a descriptor provider, comprising the descriptor, and arranged to install the descriptor into a protected memory according to the first trigger signal; and
the guest VM, wherein an OS of the guest VM is configured according to the descriptor.
Arroyo further discloses a hypervisor, arranged to generate a first trigger signal according to the driving signal, for triggering installation of a descriptor (in view of paragraph 0024 PGPUB of the instant specification, installing is storing, therefore, Arroyo paragraphs 0069 and 0077: “the configuration module 310 is configured to trigger the hypervisor, or other virtualization manager, to reset the second physical I/O adapter 104 and update configuration information for the second physical I/O adapter 104 based on the updated physical device information. The configuration information, for example, may be located and maintained in the hypervisor such that when the new I/O adapter 104 is installed, the hypervisor updates the device information in the device tree and the configuration module 310 triggers a reset, restart, initialization, or the like of the new I/O adapter 104.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] the hypervisor updating/saving the device information/configuration);
a descriptor provider, comprising the descriptor, and arranged to install the descriptor into memory according to the first trigger signal (in view of paragraph 0024 PGPUB of the instant specification, installing is storing, therefore, Arroyo paragraphs 0069 and 0077: “the configuration module 310 is configured to trigger the hypervisor, or other virtualization manager, to reset the second physical I/O adapter 104 and update configuration information for the second physical I/O adapter 104 based on the updated physical device information. The configuration information, for example, may be located and maintained in the hypervisor such that when the new I/O adapter 104 is installed, the hypervisor updates the device information in the device tree and the configuration module 310 triggers a reset, restart, initialization, or the like of the new I/O adapter 104.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] the hypervisor updating/saving the device information/configuration).
Shah further discloses store the descriptor in a protected memory (paragraph 0078: “If a policy or profile is established, for example, to administer password update procedures, the TPM/TSS 815 also protects the policy and profile information by storing them in a memory protected by a TPM binding storage key.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Shah into Suzuki’s teaching, and Arroyo’s teaching, because it would provide for the purpose of protects the policy and profile information by storing them in a memory protected by a TPM binding storage key (Shah, paragraph 0078).
Terasaki further discloses the guest VM (FIGs. 1 and 6-7; paragraphs 0022, 0029, 0057, 0098-0099 and 0120: “a guest OS that is an operating system running on the virtual machines or an application running on the guest OS”--> a virtual machine having a guest OS 340), wherein an OS of the guest VM is configured according to the descriptor (FIGs. 1 and 6-7; paragraphs 0022, 0029, 0057, 0098-0099 and 0120: “he setting detecting unit 321 monitors the behaviors of the guest OS 341 (which can be herein regarded as the same as the guest OS unit 340) and the application 351 (which can be herein regarded as the same as the application unit 350), and detects the setting value that is actually set or the setting value that is about to be changed, with respect to each setting item corresponding to a security policy applied to the guest OS 341 running on the virtual machine system 300 and the application 351 running on the guest OS 341.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Terasaki into Suzuki’s teaching, Arroyo’s teaching, and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of it is preferable to force a policy on a guest OS or an application running on the guest OS, without a special agent installed in the guest OS (Terasaki, paragraph 0017).
As per claim 8, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Arroyo, Shah, and Terasaki, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of US 2009/0265707 to Goodman et al. (hereafter “Goodman”) and US 2016/0366240 to Jung.
As per claim 4, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the host VM comprises:
a VM monitor, arranged to generate a monitor signal in response to the guest VM being required to be generated; and an OS driver, arranged to generate the driving signal according to the monitor signal.
Goodman further discloses a VM monitor, arranged to generate a monitor signal in response to the guest VM being required to be generated (FIGs. 2B; paragraphs 0043 and 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Goodman into Suzuki’s teaching, Arroyo’s teaching, Shah’s teaching and Terasaki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of using a user interface to electronically reassign more CPUs and/or memory/storage resources to virtual machines that the administrator identifies as running too slowly (Goodman, paragraph 0008).
Jung further discloses an OS driver, arranged to generate the driving signal according to the monitor signal (paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0035 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Jung into Suzuki’s teaching, Arroyo’s teaching, Shah’s teaching and Terasaki’s teaching and Goodman’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of based on whether a secure application of the secure virtual machine is executed or whether a user input is transmitted from the secure application, the virtual machine monitor portion may transmit the user input signals only to the secure virtual machine (Jung, paragraph 0008).
As per claim 11, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Arroyo, Shah, and Terasaki, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of US 2014/0115228 to Zhou et al. (hereafter “Zhou”), US 2008/0134178 to Fitzgerald et al. (hereafter “Fitzgerald”)
As per claim 6, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the hypervisor comprises:
a pre-booting manager, arranged to:
generate the first trigger signal according to the driving signal; and
after the installation of the descriptor is completed, generate a second trigger signal for triggering the booting of the guest VM; and
a booting manager, arranged to perform the booting of the guest VM according to the second trigger signal.
Zhou further discloses wherein the hypervisor comprises:
generate the first trigger signal according to the driving Signal (FIG. 1; paragraph 0017: “For example, hypervisor 108 on host 122 may be requested (e.g., by a VM data center management platform such as vCenter Server) to run a VM 118, upon which, management agent 120 on host 122 may receive a notification from hypervisor 108 (e.g., by registering with hypervisor 108 to request notification of certain VM related events, such as VM startup, migration, shutdown and the like) of the intention to start VM 118, and accordingly communicates with global policy manager 126 to obtain the caching policy for VM 118 to confirm whether host 122 can comply with the caching policy of VM 118.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] hypervisor is requested [Wingdings font/0xE0] hypervisor notifying a management agent).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Zhou into Suzuki’s teaching, Arroyo’s teaching, Shah’s teaching, and Terasaki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of Global caching policy manager 126 maintains VM-specific caching policies such that the policies are accessible to a number of hosts in a data center or managed cluster (Zhou, paragraph 0007).
Fitzgerald further discloses a pre-booting manager, arranged to:
after the installation of the descriptor is completed (paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078-0079: “the enforce module 207 is configured to execute policy-based checking of the VMs, as well as their respective hosts (such as host/VMM 103) and/or the requester. For instance, the enforce module 207 can be configured to check if a guest/VM 107 is properly licensed, and/or if the target host has the proper security software and patches installed, and/or to check if the requester has access permission to use the guest/VM 107. The context and time of the request can also be checked for policy compliance to enforce policies regarding execution windows (e.g., M-F, 9-5) and intended uses (e.g., production vs. test).”) generate a second trigger signal for triggering the booting of the guest VM (paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078 and 0079: “After pre-execution processing, if ok to execute (e.g., VM complies with all content policies), then the event handler 217 directly invokes the start VM request.”); and
a booting manager, arranged to perform the booting of the guest VM according to the second trigger signal (FIG. 2B; requesting to start [Wingdings font/0xE0] executing/start; paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078 and 0079: “After pre-execution processing, if ok to execute (e.g., VM complies with all content policies), then the event handler 217 directly invokes the start VM request.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Fitzgerald into Suzuki’s teaching, Arroyo’s teaching, Shah’s teaching, Terasaki’s teaching, and Zhou’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of applying one or more compliance policies to an execution platform of the VM to determine if the execution platform is compliant with the VM compliance scheme associated with the managed system (Fitzgerald, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 13, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Arroyo, Shah, and Terasaki, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Fitzgerald.
As per claim 7, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a boot loader, arranged to perform a check operation upon the verified descriptor, to generate a checked descriptor; wherein the OS of the guest VM is configured according to the checked descriptor.
Fitzgerald further discloses a boot loader, arranged to perform a check operation upon the verified descriptor, to generate a checked descriptor (paragraphs 0078-0079: “Thus, the enforce module 207 applies the policies and detects non-compliances, and the adapt VM module 211 makes the changes necessary to bring the VM into compliance.”);
wherein the OS of the guest VM is configured according to the checked descriptor (FIG. 2B; requesting to start [Wingdings font/0xE0] executing/start; paragraphs 0036, 0057, 0078 and 0079: “After pre-execution processing, if ok to execute (e.g., VM complies with all content policies), then the event handler 217 directly invokes the start VM request.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Fitzgerald into Suzuki’s teaching, Zhou’s teaching, Kim’s teaching, and Shah’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of applying one or more compliance policies to an execution platform of the VM to determine if the execution platform is compliant with the VM compliance scheme associated with the managed system (Fitzgerald, paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Fitzgerald into Suzuki’s teaching, Arroyo’s teaching, Shah’s teaching, and Terasaki’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of applying one or more compliance policies to an execution platform of the VM to determine if the execution platform is compliant with the VM compliance scheme associated with the managed system (Fitzgerald, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 14, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday, and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights