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 .
Current application is a CON of application number 18/353,559, now a US Patent Number 12,081,404 which is a CON of application number 17/817,201, now a US Patent Number 11,743,126 which is a CON of application number 17/339,019 which is now a US Patent Number 11,438,235 B1 which is a CON of application number 16/579,180 which is now a US Patent Number 11,038,762 B1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: limitation on line 10-11 in claim 1: “…performed on any resource assigned with the user-defined label” and claim 11 recites similar limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,404 B1, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,743,126 B1, 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,438,235 B1, and 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,038,762 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the current application are broader and obvious variants of the claims from said patents relating to the key-value pairs of the user-defined label for resources across a plurality of different computing environments and the values that the labels assume are obvious variants given the rest of claim construction across different patents mentioned above and the current claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandwine at al. (US 2014/0207861 A1, hereinafter Brandwine) in view of Chang et al. (US 2017/0339070 A1, hereinafter Chang) and in further view of Chhabra et al. (US 2020/0007455 A1, hereinafter Chhabra).
Regarding claim 11, Brandwine teaches a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, [Figures 1-4, 8, and 9], the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
grouping multiple resources from a plurality of resources into a resource group, [multiple resources are in consideration for tagging as a group, Figure 6; See Figure 5, element 501 (resources associated with the user), element 502 enables identifying resources to assign tags (user-defined labels), see also Figure 6 and Figure 5, element 507 enables identifying resources to perform operations using tags (user-defined labels)];
obtaining a user-defined label, assigning the user-defined label to each resource of the resource group, [see Figure 6 where tag (user-defined label) is assigned to one or more resource (resource group) based on user request and access control policy (resource policy) that specifies which users are allowed to apply the tag to which resources; claim is not clear if these labels can be different for each resource within the same group and if it is not, then assigning a label to each resource would be the same for all resources in the one or more resources (of the resource group); Par. [0015] and [0017] among others describes the tag (user-defined label) as a key-value pair];
generating a resource policy restricting operations performed on any resource assigned with the user-defined label, [See Figure 6 where tag (user-defined label) is assigned to one or more resource based on user request and access control policy (resource policy) that specifies which users are allowed to apply the tag to which resources or perform operations on resources; Figure 5 shows policies attached to the tag in the context of one or more resources (resource policy) for performing operations on the resources based on the tags; See also Figures 1, 2, and 3; see Abstract and other associated description; Par.[0017] among others describes access control policy (resource policy) that restricts assigning tags to a resource based on specific keys: Because each tag can be comprised of a key and value pair, the restrictions in the access control policy can be based on ether (1) a combination of a specific key and a specific value, or (2) based on a specific key regardless of any value that may be associated with it; See also Par.[0025]]; and
applying the resource policy to the multiple resources in the resource group, [see Abstract and Par.[0001] for user resource tagging in cloud computing environment; See Figure 5 and 6 show applying access control policy in the context of an identified resource for tag assignment (Figure 6) and also in the context of performing an operation using the resource (Figure 5, element 506, 507); See also Figures 2 and 3 for tag use access control policy for a resource and resource use control policy; see associated descriptions for the same; claim language is broad];
Brandwine is not explicit about the plurality of resources distributed across a plurality of different computing environments in communication with the data processing hardware, [Examiner notes that Brandwine is not explicit about multiple different computing environments (private and public) but describes in general detail private and public computing environments for tenant resources and there is no rule that the resource tagging described in Brandwine would not apply to resources if they are distributed across private and public computing environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the minor detail that tenant resources in Brandwine would straddle between private and public computing environments as taught by Chang];
However, in an analogous art, Chang teaches the plurality of resources distributed across a plurality of different computing environments in communication with the data processing hardware, [Par.[0013] describes a hybrid cloud environment, including a private cloud and a public cloud (two distinct and different computing environments) for tenant (user) resources; see also Figures 1 and 5; note that the term ‘plurality of computing environments’ is broad but is interpreted in light of Specification Par. [0005] as public and private computing environments; Par.[0038] refers to a tagging resources in the hybrid cloud network];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brandwine to include multiple computing environments for a user’s resources. The motivation/suggestion would have been to establish a hybrid cloud that provides tenant access to the one or more computing resources between a public cloud and an enterprise network, [Chang: Abstract];
Brandwine and Chang do not explicitly teach (label) comprising a value of a key-value pair representing a location of the resource group, [note that Chang reference in Par.[0038] shows an origin identifier in the tag based on affinity policy process to tag the resources in the hybrid cloud network with an origin identifier of the public cloud network; however, Chhabra reference below is provided for more clarity];
Chhabra teaches (label) comprising a value of a key-value pair representing a location of the resource group, [Abstract and Par.[0024] describe “Tags may be metadata, which may include a key-value pair. Tags may include email addresses, cost centers, project identifiers, location, team name, etc.”]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brandwine to include location in the labels. The motivation/suggestion would have been to facilitate decisions by an access management service regarding access of computing resources by principals, [Chhabra: Abstract].
Regarding claim 12, Brandwine, Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and Brandwine teaches wherein the resource policy comprises at least one of: a firewall policy; a networking policy; or a quota policy, [Figure 6 describes access control policies (networking) associated with assigning tags to resources].
Regarding claim 13, Brandwine, Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and Brandwine teaches wherein the resource policy comprises a unique user- defined string of characters, [Par.[0015] and [0017] among others describe the tag as a key-value pair with character strings].
Regarding claim 14, Brandwine, Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 12, and Brandwine teaches wherein a key of the key-value pair is associated with multiple different values, [Par.[0015] and [0017] among others describe the tag as a key-value pair with different values/character strings].
Regarding claim 15, Brandwine, Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and Brandwine teaches wherein the resource policy comprises at least one of: a first constraint associated with a key of the key-value pair; or a second constraint associated with the value of the key-value pair, [See Figure 5 and 6 show applying access control policy (constraint, who and what) in the context of an identified resource for tag assignment (Figure 6) and also in the context of performing an operation using the resource (Figure 5, element 506, 507)].
Regarding claim 16, Brandwine, Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and Chang teaches wherein the plurality of different computing environments comprise at least one private computing environment and at least one public computing environment, [dependent claim is obvious over Brandwine in view of Chang for the same reasons as above; [Par.[0013] describes a hybrid cloud environment, including a private cloud and a public cloud (two distinct and different computing environments) for tenant (user) resources; see also Figures 1 and 5; Par.[0038] refers to a tagging resources in the hybrid cloud network].
Regarding claim 17, Brandwine, Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 16, and Chang teaches wherein the private computing environment comprises an on-premises computing environment, [dependent claim is obvious over Brandwine in view of Change for the same reasons as above; Par.[0013] and Figure 1 for enterprise network].
Regarding claim 18, Brandwine Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and, Brandwine teaches wherein the plurality of resources comprise at least one of a virtual machine, a database, a key-value store, or a network, [See Par.[0014] among others, Figure 4B shows a tag data store (key-value store)].
Regarding claim 19, Brandwine Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and, and Brandwine teaches wherein the operations further comprise identifying the resource group from the plurality of resources using the user-defined label assigned to each resource of the resource group, [multiple resources are in consideration for tagging as a group, Figure 6; See Figure 5, element 501 (resources associated with the user), see also Figure 6 and Figure 5, element 507 enables identifying resources to perform operations using tags (user-defined labels)].
Regarding claim 20, Brandwine Chang, and Chhabra disclose the system of claim 11, and, and Brandwine teaches wherein the resource policy comprises a first resource policy associated with a key of the key-value pair and a second resource policy associated with the value of the key-value pair, [Par.[0017] describes exceptions to a first access control policy which may be interpreted as a second policy for a specific value and see also Par.[0024]-[0025]].
Claims 2-10 correspond to claims 12-20 and are rejected as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights