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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to amendment filed on 09/15/2026. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and 15 have been amended. Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 have been canceled. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL
Response to Argument
Claims 6 and 13 have been amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection. Therefore, 112(b) rejection for claims 6 and 13 has been withdrawn.
The Office will maintain no-statutory double patenting rejection between the instant application and patent 12,321,479.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are pending, of which claims, of which claim 1, claim 8 and claim 15 are in independent form.
The Office's Note:
7. The Office has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim(s), other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the cited passages as taught by the prior art or relied upon by the Examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Scrivano, US 20220317987, (herein after Scrivano), in view of Gerraty, US 8161012, (herein after Gerraty), in view of Quinlan, US 20030028508, (herein after Quinlan), in view of Wurster, US 20170091182, (herein after Wurster) and further in view of Chang, US 20170003956, (herein after Chang).
Claim 1 rejected Scrivano teaches a method comprising (Scrivano, abstract and summary):
receiving at a service, a contents file describing an image file to be mounted and mount information for the image file, wherein the service runs as a privileged process in user space of an operating system (Scrivano, US 20220317987, figs. 3A and 3B, and para [0027-0028], The FUSE 222B may begin fetching the files that the container image 305 is comprised of from the registry server 130 as a background process in order to build (the base layers of) the container image 305 locally (e.g., within the currently empty lower layers of the overlay mount 224). This is desirable as the higher level logic for retrieving container images is ideally located in user-space. While fetching the container image 305, the FUSE 222B may also act as a proxy between the container 115 and the underlying container image 305. In this way, while the container image 305 is not fully built locally, the FUSE 222B may manage requests from the container 115 to access files. To handle pending file requests, in some embodiments, the FUSE 222B may emulate the overlay mount 224 so if the container 115 wishes to write a file, the FUSE 222B may write the file in the upper (write) layer at the appropriate location, or it may attempt to write to the overlay mount 224 through the overlay FS 222A.);
generating by the service, an image binary file based on the contents file (Scrivano, US 20220317987, figs. 3A and 3B, and para [0027-0028], Once the FUSE 222B determines that all of the files that the container image 305 is comprised of have been retrieved or requested, it may process any pending file requests as described above, thereby resulting in the entire container image 305 being locally stored. At this point, the base layers of container image 305 (i.e., a set of underlying directories corresponding to the container image 305) may be built in the overlay mount 224 and the FUSE 222B may instruct the overlay mount 224 to use the underlying base layers to run the container 115. At the same time, the FUSE 222B may unmount itself (i.e., detach itself from the file system view), so that the container 115 may be exposed to the underlying overlay mount 224 which now comprises the complete base layers of the container image 305.. Para [0029-0030].);
Scrivano does not explicitly teach
and wherein the mount information comprises an expected checksum of the image file;
generating by the service, an image binary file based on the contents file and a generated checksum for the image binary file;
validating, by a processing device, whether the image binary file using the mount information by determining that the generated checksum matches the expected checksum;
in response to determining that the image binary file is valid, sending a request to kernel space of the operating system to mount the image binary file
However, Gerraty teaches
in response to determining that the image binary file is valid, sending a request to kernel space of the operating system to mount the image binary file (Gerraty, US 8161012, column 1, line 35 to 67, When the network device kernel mounts the file system contained in the ISO image, the kernel also establishes the integrity of the ISO image file itself using a digital signature calculated for the ISO image file according to a hashing algorithm. Because alterations of any of the component files of an ISO image would also compromise the integrity of ISO image file itself, verifying the ISO image using the associated digital signature ensures, at a high probability, that the component files have not been modified. Gerraty, column 1, line 35 to 67, If the calculated signature matches a certified, pre-calculated signature, the network device locates, in a file system data structure, the file system mounted from the ISO image and marks that file system as verified. Gerrarty, column 6, line 10-18, Operating system 24 further comprises verified execution module 26 ("veriexec 26"), which kernel 25 uses to verify the file integrity of files managed by virtual file system 32. In operation, kernel 25 or one of daemons 22 sends veriexec 26 a manifest file comprising manifest entries that map a file path in a file system to a digital fingerprint for the file that has been calculated a priori with a hashing algorithm. Examples of well-known hashing algorithms include, for example, MD5, SHA1, SHA256, RMD160, and others. Gerraty, column 6, line 18 to 28, When a file that has an entry in the manifest is read or executed, veriexec 26 calculates, using the same hashing algorithm with which the pre-calculated fingerprint was generated, a digital fingerprint for the file and compares the calculated fingerprint with the fingerprint in the manifest entry. Different fingerprints indicate that the file has been corrupted. Veriexec 26 may respond to a corrupted file by warning the kernel or a user; by preventing the file from executing or being read; or, in some cases, by locking down router 10 to prevent corrupted operation of the router.).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Gerraty into Scrivano’s invention to verify archive file of an entire file system when archive file is mounted by the network device as suggested by Gerraty (abstract and summary).
The Office would like to use prior Quinlan to back up Scrivano and Gerraty to further teach limitation
mount(Quinlan, US 20030028508, para [0010-0011], To avoid this need to specify a file system, UNIX employs a concept known as mounting, in which an entire first file system is placed (or "mounted", to use the UNIX terminology) with its hierarchical tree structure intact in a directory of a second file system, so that all files can be referenced from within a single file system. Thus, the file system 102 of FIG. 1 can be placed in subdirectory b (the "mount point") to create the single file system 200 shown in FIG. 2. In this single file system 200, file r can be referenced as/a/d/r, and file x as/b/x, without any need to specify a file system. Para [0012-0013], To summarize, mounting a file system logically associates it with another file system so that it can be referenced from within the other file system, while unmounting a file system logically dissociates it from another file system so that it can no longer be referenced from within the other file system. The term "mount operation", as used generically herein, refers to either of these operations, as well as any other operation that changes the logical association of a first file system with a second file system (as by moving the mount point within the second file system or to a different file system).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Quinlan into Scrivano, Gerraty’s invention to control performance of file system mounting operation such as UNIX system operation in computer system. A file system installation request is received from user and authority of user is verified. The requested system is installed, when the user authority is recognized as suggested by Quinlan (abstract and summary).
Scrivano, Gerraty and Quinlan do not explicitly teach
and wherein the mount information comprises an expected checksum of the image file;
generating by the service, an image binary file based on the contents file and a generated checksum for the image binary file;
validating, by a processing device, whether the image binary file using the mount information by determining that the generated checksum matches the expected checksum;
However, Wurster teaches
and wherein the mount information comprises an expected checksum of the image file(Wurster, US 20170091182, fig. 2 and para [0038], the first file system 204 is a data storage that provides integrity protection. The first file system 204 includes a signature 210. In various examples, the signature 210 is able to be stored in any suitable location. For example, the signature 210 for a particular file system is able to be stored in that particular file system itself, in another location, or in combinations of these. In further examples, integrity protection is able to be provided by any suitable technique which may or may not include signature data or other data structures. Fig. 2 and para [0042], the signature authentication processor 220 is used, for example, to verify signatures file systems that are attempted to be mounted as a trusted file system. The signature authentication processor 220 performs defined processing to, for example, verify the signature based on a public key of the originator of the data, determining that one or more hash values stored in the signature 210 of the first file system 204 matches hash values for the data currently stored in that file system, other operations, or combinations of these.);
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Wurster into Scrivano, Gerraty and Quinlan’s invention to control performance of file system mounting operation such as UNIX system operation in computer system. A file system installation request is received from user and authority of user is verified. The requested system is installed, when the user authority is recognized as suggested by Wurster (abstract and summary).
Scrivano, Gerraty, Quinlan and Wurster do not explicitly teach
generating by the service, an image binary file based on the contents file and a generated checksum for the image binary file;
validating, by a processing device, whether the image binary file using the mount information by determining that the generated checksum matches the expected checksum;
However, Chang teaches
generating by the service, an image binary file based on the contents file and a generated checksum for the image binary file(Chang, US 2017003956, para [0054], FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart 400 of an example mechanism for deploying computer firmware on a system 100. At step 402, a firmware image to be integrated into computer firmware is generated. The firmware image can include a firmware file and/or module. Moreover, the firmware image can include a logical volume, such as a user firmware volume, which can be integrated into the computer firmware volume hosting the current computer firmware. Thus, the firmware image can include the firmware module as well as the file system or logical structure to be integrated into the computer firmware and/or computer firmware volume. Fig. 9 and para [0093-0094], the server 208 can encrypt the message digest with a private key. The server 208 can then integrate the encrypted message digest into a user firmware volume containing the firmware file (906). Para [0095-0096].);
validating, by a processing device, whether the image binary file using the mount information by determining that the generated checksum matches the expected checksum (Chang, para [0095], Next, the system 210 can extract the encrypted message digest and firmware file from the user firmware volume (908). For example, the system 210 can receive the user firmware volume from the server 208 (or any other device) and extract its contents. In some cases, the system 210 can receive the user firmware volume from the server 208 over network 202. The system 210 can then decrypt the message digest extracted from the user firmware volume (910) and sign the firmware file extracted from the user firmware volume to create a second message digest (912). The system 210 can sign the firmware file extracted by applying the same hash function used to sign the firmware file at step 902. This will yield a second message digest (i.e., signed firmware file), which can be compared with the message digest from step 902 to determine authenticity of the firmware file or detect any manipulations or modifications to the firmware file. Para [0096], Next, the system 210 can authorize the firmware file (914). The system 210 can authorize the firmware file by comparing the message digest from step 902 with the second message digest. If the message digest from step 902 and the second message digest match, the system 210 can validate or authorize the firmware file. Alternatively, if the message digest from step 902 and the second message digest do not match, the system 210 can invalidate the firmware file or deem it unauthorized. Here, the system 210 can ignore or discard the firmware file for not being validated or authorized.);
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Chang into Scrivano, Gerraty, Quinlan and Wurster’s invention to control performance of file system mounting operation such as UNIX system operation in computer system. A file system installation request is received from user and authority of user is verified. The requested system is installed, when the user authority is recognized as suggested by Chang (abstract and summary).
Claim 2 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Scrivano, Gerraty, Quinlan, Wurster and Chang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the mount information comprises(Scrivano, para [0019-0028]. Quinlan, para [0034-0037 and 0039-0042]. Wurster, para [0038-0045].):
a destination mount namespace for the image file (Scrivano, fig. 2A and para [0019], The host OS 221 may use namespaces to isolate the resources of containers from each other. Quinlan, para [0034-0037], FIG. 4 shows the various profiles used by security manager 316 to control access to protected resources. As shown in the figure, these profiles, which are maintained in the security database 318, include data set profiles 402 and resource profiles 404. Each data set 402 profile may be either a discrete profile or a generic profile. Each discrete profile 402 controls access to a single data set that has unique security requirements (such as, for example, a file system), while each generic profile 402 controls access to multiple data sets that have common security requirements. Fig. 7 and para [0039-0042], allows the mount to occur (step 706). Wurster, para [0038-0045].); and
a mount target location for the image file (Gerraty, column 8, line 15 to 25, The kernel uses the data in mount list entries 43 to determine, for example, the name of the device that an associated file system uses, the name of the file system, and the location, in the routing engine 12 directory hierarchy, of the file system relative to the root. In some embodiments, virtual file system list 42 is a table, tree, or other data structure. Root file system 46, as the root file system and thus first in virtual file system list 42, is associated with mount list entry 43A. The file system stored by KERNEL.iso 50, KERNEL file system 47, is mounted on root file system 46 and is associated with mount list entry 43B. Quinlan, para [0034-0037], FIG. 4 shows the various profiles used by security manager 316 to control access to protected resources. As shown in the figure, these profiles, which are maintained in the security database 318, include data set profiles 402 and resource profiles 404. Each data set 402 profile may be either a discrete profile or a generic profile. Each discrete profile 402 controls access to a single data set that has unique security requirements (such as, for example, a file system), while each generic profile 402 controls access to multiple data sets that have common security requirements. Fig. 7 and para [0039-0042], allows the mount to occur (step 706). Wurster, para [0038-0045].).
Claim 3 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 2, Scrivano, Gerraty, Quinlan, Wurster and Chang teach the method of claim 2, wherein validating the image binary file comprises (Chang, para [0093-0096]. Scrivano, para [0019-0028]. Quinlan, para [0034-0037 and 0039-0042]. Wurster, para [0038-0045].):
determining whether the destination mount namespace is owned by a user requesting the image file to be mounted; determining whether the mount target location is owned by the user requesting the image file to be mounted; and determining that the image binary file is valid if the destination mount namespace and the mount target location are owned by the user requesting the image file to be mounted (Scrivano, para [0025], The container engine 222 may further comprise a file system in user space (FUSE) whose higher level logic may be implemented in user-space and may allow non-privileged users to create their own file systems without editing the code of the kernel. This is achieved by running the file system code in user space while a FUSE module provides a “bridge” to the actual kernel interfaces. The FUSE may allow the container engine 222 to perform a “lazy image pull” where a container is created before a container image the container is to be based on is locally available (e.g., stored within the overlay FS 222A). The container image is loaded on demand when the container wants to access the container image. As discussed, traditional methods of performing a lazy image pull require the FUSE to exist for the lifetime of the container, even after the container image is fully fetched locally. Quinlan, para [0034-0037], FIG. 4 shows the various profiles used by security manager 316 to control access to protected resources. As shown in the figure, these profiles, which are maintained in the security database 318, include data set profiles 402 and resource profiles 404. Each data set 402 profile may be either a discrete profile or a generic profile. Each discrete profile 402 controls access to a single data set that has unique security requirements (such as, for example, a file system), while each generic profile 402 controls access to multiple data sets that have common security requirements. Fig. 7 and para [0039-0042], allows the mount to occur (step 706). Wurster, para [0038-0045].).
Claim 6 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Scrivano, Gerraty, Quinlan, Wurster and Chang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the contents file specifies (Scrivano, para [0019-0028]. Quinlan, para [0034-0037 and 0039-0042]. Wurster, para [0038-0045].):
a name of the image file; a location of the image file; and a location of an image file payload (Scrivano, para [0028-0030], More specifically, upon receiving a request from the container 115 to access a file, the FUSE 222B may determine whether the requested file is one of the files that the container image 305 is comprised of, and if so may determine whether the requested file has already been fetched from the registry server 130 and locally stored. If the FUSE 222B determines that the requested file is part of the container image 305 and has been locally stored, then it may retrieve the file from the overlay mount 224 and provide it to the container 115. If the FUSE 222B determines that the requested file is part of the container image 305 and that it has not been locally stored, it may fetch the requested file from the registry server 130 and store it in the overlay mount 224 (e.g., within the appropriate base layer being constructed in the overlay mount 224). Once the requested file(s) has been written to the overlay mount 224, the FUSE 222B may provide it to the container 115. If the FUSE 222B determines that the requested file is not part of the container image 305, the FUSE 222B may determine that the container wants to create a new file. Thus, the FUSE 222B may create an empty file in the upper (write) layer of the overlay mount 224. While there are no active requests for files from the container 115, the FUSE 222B may continue fetching the files that the container image 305 is comprised of and storing them locally to build the base layers for the container image 305 within the overlay mount 224. Quinlan, para [0034-0037], FIG. 4 shows the various profiles used by security manager 316 to control access to protected resources. As shown in the figure, these profiles, which are maintained in the security database 318, include data set profiles 402 and resource profiles 404. Each data set 402 profile may be either a discrete profile or a generic profile. Each discrete profile 402 controls access to a single data set that has unique security requirements (such as, for example, a file system), while each generic profile 402 controls access to multiple data sets that have common security requirements. Fig. 7 and para [0039-0042], allows the mount to occur (step 706).).
Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Scrivano, Gerraty, Quinlan, Wurster and Chang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the contents file comprises text information describing the image file (Gerraty, column 1, line 40-44, a network device uses file systems to store and organize files on a storage medium. File systems include files and metadata (e.g., directories, directory records, and attributes) that enable a user of the file system to efficiently locate and access the files on the storage medium. Quinlan, para [0034-0037], FIG. 4 shows the various profiles used by security manager 316 to control access to protected resources. As shown in the figure, these profiles, which are maintained in the security database 318, include data set profiles 402 and resource profiles 404. Each data set 402 profile may be either a discrete profile or a generic profile. Each discrete profile 402 controls access to a single data set that has unique security requirements (such as, for example, a file system), while each generic profile 402 controls access to multiple data sets that have common security requirements. Fig. 7 and para [0039-0042], allows the mount to occur (step 706). Wurster, para [0038-0045].).
As per claim 8, this is the system claim to method claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 9, this is the system claim to method claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 10, this is the system claim to method claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 13, this is the system claim to method claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 14, this is the system claim to method claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 15, this is the medium claim to method claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 16, this is the medium claim to method claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 17, this is the medium claim to method claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 20, this is the medium claim to method claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Inquiry
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY KHUONG THANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 5712723759. 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.
/DUY KHUONG T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights