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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 7 May 2026. They have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome some of the rejections. The rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn, with the exception of claims 6 and 9 which have not been sufficiently amended to address all of the issued raised in the previous Office Action. The rejection against those claims is therefore maintained. With respect to the rejection based on prior art, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued, in summary, that
Warkentin did not adequately disclose an “emulation environment boot loader” as claimed,
Warkentin’s kernel did not correspond to the claimed OS kernel that is launched as part of the emulation environment boot loader,
Warkentin’s kernel did not host a UEFI emulation environment and a subsequent boot loader launched inside the environment.
With respect to (1), Warkentin discloses a hypervisor which initializes a virtual platform 150 [Fig. 1, para. 0033]. Applicant’s examples of “emulation environment boot loader” in the art are noted, but they do not serve to further limit the language of the claim itself. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of an “emulation environment” may include the virtual platform 150 disclosed by Warkentin1. Because Warkentin teaches that hypervisor 118 initializes the virtual platform 150 in response to VM power on, Warkentin therefore also discloses that the hypervisor 118 is an emulation environment boot loader according to BRI2.
With respect to (2), Warkentin teaches that kernel 134 is a component of hypervisor 118 [Fig. 1, para. 0024]. Warkentin therefore discloses that the emulation environment boot loader (i.e., hypervisor 118) comprises an OS kernel. Warkentin additionally teaches that hardware platform 106 hands off execution to hypervisor 118 upon power on of the host computer. This demonstrates that hypervisor 118 is executing at least by this point, indicating that it is launched upon power on. Warkentin therefore discloses an OS kernel that is launched as part of the emulation environment boot loader.
With respect to (3), Warkentin teaches that virtual platform 150 includes virtual firmware 144 which comprises UEFI firmware [para. 0026]. As demonstrated in the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s argument (1), Warkentin also teaches that the virtual platform is an emulation environment according to BRI. Warkentin therefore teaches that VM 120 and/or virtual platform 150 is a UEFI emulation environment according to BRI. Additionally, Warkentin teaches that kernel 134 provides support for guest software in VM 120 [para. 0026], which includes guest OS 126. Warkentin therefore discloses a UEFI emulation environment that is hosted by the OS kernel according to BRI. Warkentin also teaches that virtual firmware 144 hands off execution to a bootloader of guest OS 126, thereby disclosing a step to launch a subsequent boot loader inside the UEFI emulation environment.
The rejection based on Warkentin is therefore maintained.
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.
Claims 6 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected as being indefinite for the limitations “the hardware”, “the functionality”, and “the UEFI”. These limitations lack proper antecedent basis. The Examiner recommends amending this instances to recite “hardware”, “a functionality”, and “the UEFI emulation environment”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Warkentin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0195484.
Regarding claim 1, Warkentin discloses a computer-implemented method for launching at least one boot loader of a computer system, the method comprising:
launching an emulation environment boot loader [Fig. 1: hypervisor 118; para. 0033: “…hypervisor 118 initializes virtual platform 150 for a VM 120 in response to VM power on…”]3, wherein the emulation environment boot loader comprises an operating system kernel [Fig. 1: kernel 134] that is launched as part of the emulation environment boot loader;
hosting, by the operating system kernel, a UEFI emulation environment [para. 0026: “Virtual platform 150 includes a virtual firmware 144 (e.g., a… unified extensible firmware interface (UEFI) firmware).”]; and
launching, inside the UEFI emulation environment, at least one subsequent boot loader [para. 0026: “Virtual firmware 144 performs initialization of virtual platform 150 prior to handing off execution to a bootloader of guest OS 126.”].
Regarding claim 2, Warkentin discloses launching at least one intermediate boot loader inside the UEFI emulation environment, the intermediate bootloader being loaded before booting a main operating system of the computer system [para. 0026: bootloader of guest OS 126].
Regarding claim 5, Warkentin discloses launching a final operating system loader for launching a main operating system of the computer system [para. 0026: bootloader of guest OS 126].
Claim 13 recites the same functions as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, Warkentin discloses an apparatus for a computer system, the apparatus comprising one or more interfaces and one or more processors, wherein the apparatus is configured to perform the method according to claim 1 [Fig. 1].
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warkentin in view of Venkat et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0033220.
Regarding claim 8, Warkentin discloses the method of claim 1, and also teaches an OS kernel launched by the emulation environment boot loader, but does not teach device drivers for supporting one or more hardware devices are launched with the OS kernel.
Venkat discloses device drivers for supporting one or more hardware devices are launched with an OS kernel [para. 0016: “The hypervisor typically provides a number of device drivers that support use of I/O by the VMs being managed by the hypervisor.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Warkentin and Venkat by modifying Warkentin to launch device drivers with the OS kernel, as taught by Venkat. Warkentin and Venkat both disclose the use of hypervisor. Warkentin additionally teaches that the system includes I/O devices [Fig. 1: IO 114; para. 0016]] Venkat teaches that device drivers are typically provided by a hypervisor to support I/O use by VMs. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Venkat to Warkentin based on Venkat’s teachings that provision of device drivers by hypervisors is typical, and that such provision enables the use of the I/O devices in Warkentin’s system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 4, 7, and 10-12 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.
Claims 6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,992,024, and Schwartz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0088697, both disclose systems that employs a first and second bootloader.
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 JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
1 This is further supported by para. 0026 of Warkentin which teaches that the virtual platform includes emulated hardware.
2 Alternatively, para. 0016 of Warkentin teaches that the hardware platform is initialized at host computer power on and hands off execution to the hypervisor (which subsequently initializes virtual platform 150). Because the hypervisor handoff occurs at host platform power on, this may provide an alternative interpretation of the hypervisor as an emulation environment boot loader.
3 The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a “emulation environment boot loader” may include hypervisor 118, which is disclosed by Warkentin as initializing a virtual platform.
Prosecution Insights