DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1–20 are pending in this application. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious, as set forth below.
Other Prior Art
Chmara et al. (US 12,450,355 B2) discloses a configuration information management system in which a configuration container, maintained within a containerized execution environment separately from an application container hosting a secure enterprise application, hosts a service that maintains on behalf of the application a security certificate issued from at least one of a certificate authority or a certificate authority gateway (col. 15, lines 23–44).
Fink et al. (US 9,979,924 B1) discloses a device that wirelessly transfers recorded video, audio, and log data to a user device, which stores the data and automatically uploads it to an Internet/Cloud server (col. 4, lines 58–61).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–4, 7–14, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Banga et al. (US 10,846,396 B1; “Banga”) in view of Hohl (US 8,204,540 B2; “Hohl”) in further view of Bosch et al. (US 8,856,544 B2; “Bosch”).
As an initial matter, the term “private cloud” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The specification describes the private cloud as an environment that is not accessible by devices outside of it, such as via the Internet. Accordingly, “private cloud” is construed to encompass a private network, such as a wireless local area network, to which a device connects directly rather than through the public Internet.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Banga teaches a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to transfer data from a first device to a second device. Banga teaches a network module (140) that intercepts a request to transfer data, the request originating from a process on a computer system (110) as the first device and directed to an external location such as a web site or FTP server (160) as the second device (col. 4, lines 11–35; col. 5, lines 1–14).
instantiating a container at the first device. Banga teaches instantiating a dedicated virtual machine (180) on the computer system (110) as the first device, the dedicated virtual machine being instantiated on-demand (col. 4, lines 26–35).
receive the data from the first device. Banga teaches that the dedicated virtual machine (180) is the single location at which all data requested to be transferred is received (col. 3, lines 23–26).
transfer the data from the first device to the second device. Banga teaches that the data transfer may be an upload in which the first device connects to a cloud storage site as the second device and the upload is migrated to a separate virtual machine in which the data transfer is managed and performed (col. 5, lines 54–61).
However, Banga does not teach the first device hosted at a private cloud, the first device comprising a portable device. Nonetheless, Hohl teaches a mobile device (1) that connects directly via a wireless link to a home server (12) on a wireless local area network, the home server being a device on the wireless network to which the mobile device transfers its data (col. 6, lines 44–46; claim 1; fig. 1), and teaches that the mobile device may be a portable or mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant, a digital camera, or a recorder (col. 2, lines 21–24).
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 system of Banga so that the first device is a portable device hosted at a private cloud, as taught by Hohl, because doing so confines the data transfer to a private wireless network rather than the public Internet and thereby limits exposure of the transferred data.
Further, Banga does not teach that the instantiating of the container at the first device is performed based on determining that the first device is communicatively connected to the private cloud. Nonetheless, the combination of Banga and Hohl teaches this limitation: Banga teaches instantiating the container at the first device in response to the first device initiating a request to transfer data (col. 5, lines 44–45; claim 2), and Hohl teaches that the mobile device initiates the data transfer request in response to detecting that it is connected to the wireless network (col. 11, lines 21–27; claim 1; fig. 3), such that in the combination the instantiating of the container is performed based on determining that the first device is communicatively connected to the private cloud.
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 system of Banga and Hohl so that the first device initiates the data request (which triggers instantiation of the container) in response to the first device determining that it is connected to the wireless network, because doing so instantiates the transfer environment only when connectivity to the private network is present, avoiding instantiation when no transfer can occur.
Additionally, the combination of Banga and Hohl does not teach instantiating the container at the first device using a first certificate authority (CA) certificate and transferring the data using a second CA certificate. Nonetheless, Bosch teaches a secure virtual machine as the container, its certificates certified by certification authorities through a public key infrastructure (col. 3, lines 17–21). As to the first CA certificate, the zone manager’s public key is certified with the processor’s private key to form the certificate C(ZM), and the secure virtual machine is instantiated in response to an instantiation command including the user’s certificate C(user) (col. 10, lines 59–67; claim 1). As to the second CA certificate, the secure virtual machine’s public key is certified with the private key of the zone manager’s (first) key pair to form the certificate C(SVM), and the secure virtual machine establishes a channel certified by C(user) and C(SVM) over which the user uploads the data into it (col. 8, lines 21–22; col. 10, lines 8–13; claim 1).
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 system of Banga and Hohl so that the container at the first device is instantiated using a first CA certificate and the data is transferred to the second device using a second CA certificate, as taught by Bosch, because doing so allows the container to be trusted through certificates issued by a certification authority and secures the data transfer over an authenticated channel, thereby protecting the transferred data in transit.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 1, and Banga further teaches wherein the container is configured to receive the data from the first device without the container or the data processing hardware directly accessing a local storage of the first device. Banga teaches that the dedicated virtual machine does not have access to sensitive resources of the computer system, such as the file system (col. 3, lines 30–32).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 1, and Hohl further teaches wherein the private cloud is isolated from the Internet. Hohl teaches a local configuration in which the mobile device and the home server are connected directly via a wireless link, without connection through the Internet (col. 6, lines 43–47; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch so that the private cloud is isolated from the Internet, because doing so prevents devices outside the private network from accessing the transferred data.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 1, and Hohl further teaches wherein the second device is hosted at the private cloud. Hohl teaches that the home server, to which the mobile device transfers its data, is a device on the wireless local area network (col. 6, lines 44–47; claim 1; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch so that the second device is hosted at the private cloud, because doing so keeps both endpoints of the transfer within the private network.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 1, and Banga further teaches wherein the second device is not hosted at the private cloud. Banga teaches that the second device is an external location, such as a web site or FTP server, that is external to the first device (col. 4, line 67; col. 5, lines 1–2).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 7, and the combination of Banga and Hohl further teaches determining that the first device is communicatively coupled to the second device via a network and instantiating the container at the first device in response to determining that the first device is communicatively coupled to the second device via the network. Hohl teaches that the mobile device initiates the data transfer request in response to detecting that it is connected to the network (col. 11, lines 21–27; claim 1; fig. 3), and Banga teaches instantiating the container at the first device in response to the first device initiating a request to transfer data to the second device over the network (col. 5, lines 44–45; claim 2), such that in the combination the instantiating of the container is performed in response to determining that the first device is communicatively coupled to the second device via the network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Banga and Hohl so that the container is instantiated in response to determining that the first device is communicatively coupled to the second device via the network, because doing so instantiates the transfer environment only when a network path to the second device is available.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 8, and Banga further teaches wherein the network comprises an internet connection. Banga teaches that the data is transferred over the Internet to an external location such as a web site (col. 5, lines 11–14).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 1, and Hohl further teaches prior to determining that the first device is communicatively connected to the private cloud, determining that the first device is not communicatively connected to the private cloud, and wherein determining that the first device is communicatively connected to the private cloud comprises determining that the first device has become communicatively connected to the private cloud after determining that the first device is not communicatively connected to the private cloud. Hohl teaches that the mobile device searches for the server at predetermined intervals and, when no suitable wireless network or home server is detected over some time, considers itself disconnected, and thereafter, when the mobile device comes into range and the wireless module signals a wireless connection to the server, the mobile device determines that it has become connected and begins the transfer (col. 4, lines 44–46; col. 17, lines 20–24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch so that connection to the private cloud is determined upon the first device becoming connected after not being connected, because doing so initiates the transfer automatically when the first device rejoins the private network.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Banga, Hohl, and Bosch, as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, in further view of Borowiec et al. (US 9,716,755 B2; “Borowiec”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch teaches the method of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the second device comprises a data center. Nonetheless, Borowiec teaches providing cloud storage array services for a storage array of a data center, the data center including a plurality of storage arrays, and locally providing the cloud storage array services when the storage array is not connected to a remote cloud-based storage array services provider (claim 1; fig. 1).
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 system of Banga, Hohl, and Bosch so that the second device comprises a data center, as taught by Borowiec, because doing so provides a scalable storage facility for the transferred data while keeping the storage services within the private network rather than a remote cloud provider.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Banga, Hohl, Bosch, and Borowiec teaches the method of claim 5, and Hohl further teaches wherein the first device comprises an edge device of the private cloud, wherein the edge device comprises one or more of a drone; a smart phone; a laptop; or an onboard computer of a vehicle. This limitation is recited in the alternative; because Hohl teaches that the mobile device may be a mobile telephone, which is a smart phone, the requirement is satisfied (col. 2, lines 21–24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Banga, Hohl, Bosch, and Borowiec so that the first device comprises a smart phone, because doing so allows data collected by a commonly available portable device to be transferred using the same secure mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 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 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.
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights