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 (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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/978,773 filed on 12 December 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potlapally et al. (US 2024/0364689 A1, hereinafter as “Potlapally”); in view of Evani et al. (US 2025/0086001 A1, hereinafter as “Evani”).
Regarding Claim 1, Potlapally teaches a method for implementing an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) data center within an enterprise network ([paragraph 0044, 0057, 0059] describes a cloud infrastructure environment can operate according to an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) data center that enables the environment to provide virtualized computing resources over an enterprise network);
the method comprising: identifying, based on a location of data center infrastructure for hosting the IaaS data center, a local jurisdiction of the data center infrastructure ([paragraph 0057-0058, 0153-0154, 0165-0166, 0170] describes identify specific jurisdiction (e.g. local jurisdiction) of the data center infrastructure to ensures compliance with sovereignty-related regulations, laws, and/or policies governing access to resources, services, and/or data based on a location of data center infrastructure for hosting applications, services, or data and is specifically designated for administrative tasks, management activities, and governance functions of the IaaS data center);
correlating the IaaS data center to a first data center type that is associated with at least one requirement from among a first set of data protection and privacy requirements that pertain to the local jurisdiction ([paragraph 0120-0121, 0151, 0165-0166, 0174-0175] describes associating the IaaS data center to a data center type such as any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system, database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data that is related to data protection, privacy, security, and governance that is relevant to the specific jurisdiction (e.g. local jurisdiction));
Potlapally doesn't explicitly disclose instantiating the IaaS data center by virtualizing the first data center type within the data center infrastructure; configuring a first set of monitoring platforms to manage and control a first set of configurations of the IaaS data center; and deploying, from the data center infrastructure, the IaaS data center to at least one data center user of the enterprise network.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Evani discloses instantiating the IaaS data center by virtualizing the first data center type within the data center infrastructure ([paragraph 0035-0036] describes IaaS data center ([paragraph 0036-0037, 0093-0095, 0207] describes creating IaaS data center by virtualizing data center type which provide virtualized computing resources within the data center infrastructure and a cloud computing services provider can host the infrastructure components (e.g., servers, storage devices, network nodes (e.g., hardware), deployment software, platform virtualization (e.g., a hypervisor layer), or the like);
configuring a first set of monitoring platforms to manage and control a first set of configurations of the IaaS data center ([paragraph 0043-0044, 0094, 0103-0105, 0175-0176] describes configuring monitoring a multi-cloud platform to manage and control different configurations of IaaS data center to meet varying requirements for legal jurisdictions, tax domains, and other business or social criteria, and the like);
and deploying, from the data center infrastructure, the IaaS data center to at least one data center user of the enterprise network ([paragraph 0034-0036, 0043-0044, 0208] describes deploying IaaS data center data center customer which can be any entity such as an individual, an organization, an enterprise, a user and the like of enterprise network from data structure infrastructure associated with that region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Potlapally to include instantiating the IaaS data center by virtualizing the first data center type within the data center infrastructure; configuring a first set of monitoring platforms to manage and control a first set of configurations of the IaaS data center and deploying, from the data center infrastructure, the IaaS data center to at least one data center user of the enterprise network as taught by Evani. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Potlapally in the Evani system in order to provide a subscribing customer easy, scalable access to applications and computing resources without the customer having to invest in procuring the infrastructure that is used for providing the services ([paragraph 0032] in Evani).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Potlapally and Evani teaches the method, wherein the virtualizing comprises at least one from among: configuring the data center infrastructure to implement a first hypervisor and virtual machine topology, wherein the first data center type comprises the first hypervisor and virtual machine topology (Evani: [paragraph 0036, 0094-0095, 0130] describes virtualizing includes configuring data structure infrastructure to implement hypervisor that creates and enables a virtualized environment on the host machines and virtual machine topology and data center type includes first hypervisor and virtual machine topology designed to provide connection redundancy while maintaining high bisection bandwidth and maximum resource utilization);
implementing a first operating system (OS) layer on top of the first hypervisor and virtual machine topology (Evani: [paragraph 0038, 0094-0095, 0208] describes implementing a first operating system (OS) layer on top of the hypervisor and virtual machine topology which is be executed alongside each other while sharing the same computing resources of the host machine);
configuring the first OS layer to include a first set of data center directories (Evani: [paragraph 0094-0095, 0158] describes configuring OS layer to include set of data center active directories); and
configuring the first OS layer to utilize a first protocol to provide access to the first set of data center directories (Evani: [paragraph 0062, 0094-0095, 0215] describes configuring OS layer includes to use protocol to provide to access data center active directories).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Potlapally to include wherein the virtualizing comprises at least one from among: configuring the data center infrastructure to implement a first hypervisor and virtual machine topology, wherein the first data center type comprises the first hypervisor and virtual machine topology; implementing a first operating system (OS) layer on top of the first hypervisor and virtual machine topology; configuring the first OS layer to include a first set of data center directories; and configuring the first OS layer to utilize a first protocol to provide access to the first set of data center directories as taught by Evani. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Potlapally in the Evani system in order to provide direct access to public endpoints on a network ([paragraph 0079] in Evani).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Potlapally and Evani teaches the method, wherein the IaaS data center is accessible only via a firewall, and wherein the firewall is configured to permit at least one from among the remote access and the restricted access (Potlapally: [paragraph 0031, 0140, 0150, 0165-0167] describes infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) data center is accessible via a firewall and configured set of access policies may specify a static or dynamic group of users who are permitted to access to a static or dynamic group of the cloud resources or blocking access to a static or dynamic group of the cloud resources).
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used except for the claim 11 A system for implementing an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) data center within an enterprise network, the system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising. In the combination, Potlapally teaches a system for implementing an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) data center within an enterprise network, the system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising ([paragraph 0043-0044, 0057, 0059] describes a cloud infrastructure environment can operate according to an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) data center that enables the environment to provide virtualized computing resources over an enterprise network and a cloud system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform various operations).
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 2 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 8 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used except for the claim 18 A non-transitory computer-readable medium for implementing an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) data center within an enterprise network, the computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising. In the combination, Potlapally teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium for implementing an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) data center within an enterprise network, the computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising ([paragraph 0044, 0057, 0059, 0217] describes a cloud infrastructure environment can operate according to an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) data center that enables the environment to provide virtualized computing resources over an enterprise network and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of any of the operations).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potlapally et al. (US 2024/0364689 A1, hereinafter as “Potlapally”); in view of Evani et al. (US 2025/0086001 A1, hereinafter as “Evani”); and further in view of Yancey et al. (US 10708269 B1, hereinafter as “Yancey”).
Regarding claim 3, Potlapally and Evani fails to teach the method, wherein the first protocol comprises at least one from among a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) and an active directory protocol.
However, Yancey teaches the method, wherein the first protocol comprises at least one from among a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) and an active directory protocol ([col 2 lines 3-13, col 3 lines 23-35] describes cloud may be provided as an infrastructure as a service (IaaS) includes first protocol using a directory-based protocol or membership-based protocol such as Active Directory® protocol, a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Potlapally/ Evani to include wherein the first protocol comprises at least one from among a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) and an active directory protocol as taught by Yancey. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Potlapally/ Evani in the Yancey system in order to establish access control rights as it relates to one or more applications ([col 1 lines13-15] in Yancey).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potlapally et al. (US 2024/0364689 A1, hereinafter as “Potlapally”); in view of Evani et al. (US 2025/0086001 A1, hereinafter as “Evani”); and further in view of Ford et al. (US 2017/0041296 A1, hereinafter as “Ford”).
Regarding claim 9, Potlapally and Evani fails to teach the method, wherein the at least one requirement requires that at least one from among secure data of the local jurisdiction and private data of the local jurisdiction is non-transitorily stored only within an environment that is isolated from the enterprise network.
However, Ford teaches the method, wherein the at least one requirement requires that at least one from among secure data of the local jurisdiction and private data of the local jurisdiction is non-transitorily stored only within an environment that is isolated from the enterprise network ([paragraph 0212-0214, 0415, 0438, 0473] requires that from among secure data of given jurisdiction and private data of the jurisdiction is stored only within an environment that is isolated from enterprise system operating in enterprise network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Potlapally/ Evani to include requirement requires that from among secure data of the local jurisdiction and private data of the local jurisdiction is non-transitorily stored only within an environment that is isolated from the enterprise network as taught by Ford. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Potlapally/ Evani in the Ford system in order to maintain a secure and auditable access facility for the third-party that is isolated from any direct interface with the enterprise document tracker database ([paragraph 0339] in Ford).
Regarding claim 10, Potlapally and Evani fails to teach the method, wherein the at least one requirement requires that at least one from among secure data of the local jurisdiction and private data of the local jurisdiction is non-transitorily stored only within an environment that is located separately from the enterprise network.
However, Ford teaches the method, wherein the at least one requirement requires that at least one from among secure data of the local jurisdiction and private data of the local jurisdiction is non-transitorily stored only within an environment that is located separately from the enterprise network ([paragraph 0212-0214, 0415, 0438, 0447, 0474] requires that from among secure data of given jurisdiction and private data of the jurisdiction is stored only within an environment that is located in different geographies from enterprise system operating in enterprise network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Potlapally/ Evani to include requirement requires that from among secure data of the local jurisdiction and private data of the local jurisdiction is non-transitorily stored only within an environment that is located separately from the enterprise network as taught by Ford. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Potlapally/ Evani in the Ford system in order to maintain a secure and auditable access facility for the third-party that is isolated from any direct interface with the enterprise document tracker database ([paragraph 0339] in Ford).
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 9-10 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Schuller et al., US 2022/0272163 A1, A provider network, coupled to the software architecture by way of network gateways within the shared infrastructure services.
- Yang et al., US 2017/0063615 A1, In certain embodiments, a Service Deployment Infrastructure (SDI) request engine is disclosed.
- Beaty et al., US 2012/0272249 Al, A system and method for correlating events in data processing resources processing a workload.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights