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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11. Currently claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
475
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, examiner would like to point out that primary reference Rainer already discloses stopping the workload when the IT security risk of the execution environment is high (See, Paragraph 0095) and Dotan further discloses depending on whether the admissibility list of admissible workloads has been changed: stopping the workload; or migrating the workload to a different host (See, Paragraphs 0111, “If the technician determines that the program presents a high risk to the users computers, the client servers may remove the program from the white list and may disable the program or have it run in an untrusted mode”). As a result, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer et al. (EP 3557463 (A1), Note: Machine translation was provided with the last office action), hereinafter, “Rainer” in view of Dotan (US 2005/0223239 A1), hereinafter, “Dotan”.
Regarding Claim 1, Rainer discloses a method for executing workloads in an execution environment, the method comprising:
determining approval of a workload for execution using an admissibility list of admissible workloads (See, Paragraph 0070);
in response to the determining the workload for execution, executing the workload in the execution environment (See, Paragraphs 0008, 0010 and 0070);
determining information identifying an IT security risk of the execution environment (See, Paragraph 0068 and 0070);
changing admissibility list of admissible workloads
stopping the workload or migrating the workload to a different host depending on the IT security risk of execution environment (See, Paragraph 0095).
Rainer does not explicitly disclose amending admissibility list of admissible workloads depending on the determined risk information and depending on whether the admissibility list of admissible workloads has been changed: stopping the workload; or migrating the workload to a different host.
Dotan discloses amending admissibility list of admissible workloads depending on a determined risk information and depending on whether the admissibility list of admissible workloads has been changed: stopping the workload; or migrating the workload to a different host (See, Paragraphs 0111, “If the technician determines that the program presents a high risk to the users computers, the client servers may remove the program from the white list and may disable the program or have it run in an untrusted mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to amend, in the system of Dotan, admissibility list of admissible workloads depending on the determined risk information as taught by Dotan for determining that the program presents a high risk to the users computers, the client servers may remove the program from the white list and may disable the program or have it run in an untrusted mode (See, Dotan, Paragraph 0111).
Regarding Claim 2, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the workload comprises: one or more of a virtual machine, an operating system container, a native operating system application, a service, and an operating system module (See, Rainer, Paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 3, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses comprising determining the risk information of the execution environment during ongoing operation of the execution environment (See, Rainer, Paragraphs 0023 and 0066).
Regarding Claim 4, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the execution environment comprises a runtime environment (See, Rainer, Paragraphs 0023 and 0066).
Regarding Claim 5, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the execution environment comprises an operating system, an input-output module, a signal connection, a switch, and/or a router (See, Rainer, Paragraph 0020).
Regarding Claim 6, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein: the risk information is determined using the execution environment or a device in which the execution environment is situated, or software that runs in the execution environment; or wherein the risk information is determined by means of a component communicatively connected to the execution environment (See, Rainer, Paragraphs 0020, 0023 and 0066).
Regarding Claim 7, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the admissibility list comprises a positive list (See, Rainer, Paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 8, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the admissibility list has two or more entries of admissible workloads (See, Rainer, Paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 10, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the risk information is determined repeatedly and the admissibility list of admissible workloads is changed in each case depending on the repeatedly determined risk information (See, Rainer, Paragraphs 0068-0069 and Dotan, Paragraphs 0066 and 0111).
Regarding Claim 11, Rainer discloses a system, configured for executing a workload in accordance with an admissibility list of admissible workloads, comprising:
an execution environment to execute the workload in which the admissibility list of admissible workloads is present (See, Paragraphs 0070 and 0020);
a processor (See, Paragraph 0012); and
a memory that includes instruction, executable by the processor to (See, Paragraph 0013):
execute the workload in the execution environment (See, Paragraphs 0008, 0010 and 0070);
determine risk information identifying an IT security risk of the execution environment (See, Paragraph 0068 and 0070); and
change the admissibility list
stopping the workload or migrating the workload to a different host depending on the IT security risk of execution environment (See, Paragraph 0095).
Rainer does not explicitly disclose amending admissibility list of admissible workloads depending on the determined risk information and depending on whether the admissibility list of admissible workloads has been changed: stopping the workload; or migrating the workload to a different host.
Dotan discloses amending admissibility list of admissible workloads depending on a determined risk information and depending on whether the admissibility list of admissible workloads has been changed: stopping the workload; or migrating the workload to a different host (See, Paragraphs 0111, “If the technician determines that the program presents a high risk to the users computers, the client servers may remove the program from the white list and may disable the program or have it run in an untrusted mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to amend, in the system of Dotan, admissibility list of admissible workloads depending on the determined risk information as taught by Dotan for determining that the program presents a high risk to the users computers, the client servers may remove the program from the white list and may disable the program or have it run in an untrusted mode (See, Dotan, Paragraph 0111).
Regarding Claim 12, the rejection of claims 11 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan further discloses wherein the system comprises an integral or unipartite or integrally or unipartitely handleable device (See, Rainer, Paragraph 0011).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer in view of Dotan and further in view of Ashkenazi et al. (US 2018/0357416 A1), hereinafter, “Ashkenazi”.
Regarding Claim 9, the rejection of claims 1 is incorporated and the combination of Rainer and Dotan does not explicitly disclose wherein the admissibility list is cryptographically protected.
Ashkenazi discloses cryptographically protecting an admissibility list (See, Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cryptographically protecting, in the system of Rainer and Dotan, admissibility list as taught by Ashkenazi to protect it from tampering (See, Ashkenazi, Paragraph 0013).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435