DETAILED ACTION
Office Action Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 .
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.
Double Patenting
Claim 1-20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Patent Nos: 12072997, 11790101, 10949562, 10789381 and 10339332. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of Patent Nos: 12072997, 11790101, 10949562, 10789381 and 10339332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same limitations where the instant application is broader than the parent applications. All the limitations of the current application are taught in the parent application claims.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Patent No: 9,342,273) (reference provided in IDS 8/22/2024) hereinafter referred to as Kumar in view of Polyverse Gounares (US Pre-Grant Publication No: 2016/0301676) (reference provided in IDS 8/22/2024) hereinafter referred to as Gounares.
As per claims 1 and 11, Kumar teaches … a build request comprising build step instructions comprising a series of build steps for building an output container and specifying a usage of a private container, wherein at least one build step of the series of build steps comprises a dependency constraint specifying a prior build step that must complete execution before commencing execution of the at least one build step; (Kumar, column 3, lines 10-22, and column 9 line 56 though column 10 line 57, teaches a container and steps needed to create a container, it is obvious that certain steps depend on each other)
But Kumar does not teach determining that the user is authorized to access the private container; based on determining that the user is authorized to access the private container, executing the build step instructions to build the output container; and outputting the built output container to a container system.
However, Gounares teaches teach receiving, from a user device associated with a user, … determining that the user is authorized to access the private container; based on determining that the user is authorized to access the private container, (Gounares, figure 7, abstract, [0017], [0040]-[0043], [0051]-[0058], [0069], and [0116]-[0118], teaches building a container from other containers and using authentication to access private data in the containers where encrypting the containers is generating a new container)
The combination of Kumar in view of Gounares teaches based on determining that the user is authorized to access the private container, executing the build step instructions to build the output container; and outputting the built output container to a container system. Since Kumar teaches the building of the container and Gounares teaches the authorization.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of building the containers of Kumar with the method of using instructions to build containers Gounares because making sure user is authorized to access containers helps preserve security.
As per claims 2 and 12, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein each respective build step of the series of build steps comprises at least one of: a container identifier; or an environment field. (Kumar, column 10 lines 32-53 and Gounares, [0035], teacher container identifier)
As per claims 3 and 13, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein the dependency constraint of the at least one build step further specifies the container identifier of the prior build step. (Kumar, column 10 lines 32-53 and Gounares, [0035], checks dependencies)
As per claims 4 and 14, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein each respective build step of the series of build steps comprises a status identifier indicating an execution status for the respective build step. (Kumar, column 10 lines 32-53 and Gounares, [0035] and [0062], teaches status identifier)
As per claims 5 and 15, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein executing the build step instructions uses one or more virtual machines. (Kumar, column 3 lines 60 to column 4 line 7, teaches virtual machines)
As per claims 6 and 16, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein the built output container comprises a build step record comprising the series of build steps of the build step instructions and an order of execution of the series of build steps. (Kumar, column 10 lines 32-53, teaches steps for building container and their steps)
As per claims 7 and 17, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein the build step record further comprises start timestamps each corresponding to a start time when execution of a respective build step began. (Kumar, column 3, lines 36-48, teaches the start up and time)
As per claims 8 and 18, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein the build step record further comprises end timestamps each corresponding to an ending time when execution of a respective build step completed. (Kumar, column 3, lines 36-48, teaches the start up and time)
As per claims 9 and 19, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches …, wherein build step instructions further specify a usage of a public container. (Gounares, [0050]-[0051])
As per claims 20 and 10, Kumar in view of Gounares teaches … wherein each build step of the series of build steps uses one of the private container or the public container. (Kumar, column3, lines 10-22)
Art of Record
Another art of record Gunter Pfau (US Pre-Grant Publication No: 2015/0065098) teaches “the use of a media engagement gateway (MEG), and, more particularly, to an engine, system and method of providing application and analytic services across diverse operating platforms.”
Another art of record Brutschy (US 20160246992 A1) teaches (", wherein the methods require the permission to access the private data of the user." AND " actual value for the private data of the user." AND "outputting the application with the rewritten code for use by the user.".)
Another art of record Yajnik (US 20250238541) teaches ("detecting, via the container instance, an operation being performed to the accessible version of the private data; and" AND "generating a link to a container instance storing an accessible version of the private data;" And " encrypted document 112 via container instance 121.")
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMON P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3906. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7AM-4PM).
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, Saleh Najjar can be reached on (571) 272-4006. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMON P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492