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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Applicant is advised that this Double Patenting rejection will not be held in abeyance. See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1); 37 CFR § 1.111(b).
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,974. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features of the instant claims can be found in the conflicting claims, and thus are anticipated by those claims.
Instant Claims
Claims of U.S. Patent Number 12,135,974
1. A method for generating custom system templates to define new system types, the method comprising: for a particular system type, defining at least a manifest file that specifies a set of properties of the particular system type; compressing the defined manifest file to create a custom system template package for the particular system type; and uploading the custom system template package to an authorization service in order to instantiate a new system of the particular system type.
1. A method for generating custom system templates to define new system types, the method comprising: for a particular system type, defining at least a manifest file that specifies a set of properties of the particular system type; compressing the defined manifest file to create a custom system template package for the particular system type; and uploading the custom system template package to an authorization service in order to instantiate a new system of the particular system type; and before compressing the defined manifest file, defining (i) a system-type logo associated with the particular system type, (ii) a first policies folder comprising a plurality of default policies associated with the particular system type, (iii) a second policies folder comprising a plurality of policies specified for the particular system type and not included in the plurality of default policies, and (iv) an assets folder comprising a set of files required for install and uninstall instructions.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising before compressing the defined manifest file, defining (i) a plurality of default policies associated with the particular system type, and (ii) a plurality of policies specified for the particular system type and not included in the plurality of default policies.
1. A method for generating custom system templates to define new system types, the method comprising: for a particular system type, defining at least a manifest file that specifies a set of properties of the particular system type; compressing the defined manifest file to create a custom system template package for the particular system type; and uploading the custom system template package to an authorization service in order to instantiate a new system of the particular system type; and before compressing the defined manifest file, defining (i) a system-type logo associated with the particular system type, (ii) a first policies folder comprising a plurality of default policies associated with the particular system type, (iii) a second policies folder comprising a plurality of policies specified for the particular system type and not included in the plurality of default policies, and (iv) an assets folder comprising a set of files required for install and uninstall instructions.
3. The method of claim 2 further comprising specifying logic that is used to combine policies.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the second policies folder comprises logic that is used to combine policies for the particular system type with one or more stack policies.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein compressing the defined manifest file further comprises: archiving the manifest file; and compressing the archived manifest file.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein compressing the defined manifest file further comprises: archiving the manifest file, system-type logo, first policies folder, second policies folder, and assets folder; and compressing the archived manifest file, system-type logo, first policies folder, second policies folder, and assets folder to create the custom system template package.
5. The method of claim 4 further comprising rendering and validating each file and folder in the compressed, archived custom system template package.
5. The method of claim 4 further comprising rendering and validating each file and folder in the compressed, archived custom system template package.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lockhart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0081862).
Regarding Claim 1, Lockhart discloses a method for generating custom system templates to define new system types, the method comprising:
for a particular system type, defining at least a manifest file (paragraph 0024; i.e., a configuration file) that specifies a set of properties (paragraphs 0002-0003; i.e., a configuration of a particular type of server) of the particular system type (i.e., the configuration file can either be updates to a particular server 340 [Figure 3] [paragraph 0039], or an entirely new configuration for the server 340 [paragraph 0059]);
compressing the defined manifest file to create a custom system template package for the particular system type (paragraph 0062; i.e., the compressed configuration file being equivalent to the claimed “custom system template package”); and
uploading (Figure 3, paragraphs 0039 and 0042; i.e., the configuration files 315 are pushed to the appropriate servers 330 from master repository 310) the custom system template package to an authorization service (Figure 6, item 620, paragraphs 0037, 0044, and 0063; i.e., the compressed configuration file is authorized before it is installed by verifying keys, signatures, and/or hashes) in order to instantiate a new system of the particular system type (paragraph 0059; i.e., the newly-configured server being created/instantiated is equivalent to the claimed “new system”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lockhart discloses before compressing the defined manifest file, defining (i) a plurality of default policies associated with the particular system type (paragraph 0002; i.e., a common set of configurations), and (ii) a plurality of policies specified for the particular system type and not included in the plurality of default policies (paragraph 0002; i.e., certain policies such as caching, purging, access restrictions, etc. that are different than the common/default settings can be modified for a particular server).
Regarding Claim 3, Lockhart discloses specifying logic that is used to combine policies (paragraph 0049; i.e., the updated configuration, which can include new policies, can be merged/combined with the existing configuration, which has currently enabled policies).
Regarding Claim 4, Lockhart discloses wherein compressing the defined manifest file further comprises:
archiving the manifest file (paragraph 0037; i.e., storing the updated configuration file); and
compressing the archived manifest file (paragraph 0059).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockhart as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Avery et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0186125).
Regarding Claim 5, Lockhart does not expressly disclose rendering and validating each file and folder in the compressed, archived custom system template package.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., configuration updating techniques), Avery teaches rendering and validating each file and folder in the custom system template package (paragraphs 0029-0030; i.e., files and folders for the software package are created/rendered and validated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Avery’s teachings of configuration updating techniques with the teachings of Lockhart, for the purpose of ensuring that the new software package is compatible with the particular server and that it will not cause the server to fail due to improper files being included in the package.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses methods for generating custom system templates for a new system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights