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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 01/09/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffy et al. (US 20220413886 A1) hereinafter referred to as Griffy in view of Chen et al. (US 20200201667 A1) hereinafter referred to as Chen.
With respect to claim 7, Griffy discloses: A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from an untrusted hypervisor, a request to migrate data from a first encrypted memory location to a second encrypted memory location; (Griffy ¶58, Fig. 1, teaches NIC 150A receiving from virtual machine a migration request from one encrypted virtual memory on Computer system 100A to another on Computer system 100B. Griffy ¶70 teaches each VM is associated with a separate send and receiving hypervisors).
establishing a secure channel to a network interface controller (NIC); (Griffy ¶58 discloses establishing an encrypted communication between memory and NIC).
transmitting, to the NIC using the secure channel, a key corresponding to a credential to access the data; (Griffy Fig. 4 teaches sharing a “transfer key”)
generating a descriptor; (Griffy ¶93 teaches generating an “offset”)
transmitting, to the NIC using the untrusted hypervisor, the descriptor; (Griffy ¶93 teaches transmitting from first VM host the offset and key to second VM host which means data is transmitted to NIC as clear from Griffy Fig. 1).
and causing, using the key, the data to migrate from the first encrypted memory location to the second encrypted memory location. (Griffy ¶93 teaches using the key to encrypt the data, which is used for migration as understood from reading the prior art).
Griffy does not explicitly disclose: a descriptor indicative of an access location for the data;
However, Chen in an analogous art discloses: a descriptor indicative of an access location for the data; transmitting, to the NIC using the untrusted hypervisor, the descriptor; (Chen ¶5 teaches data exchanged in VM passes by a network acceleration component which comprises a NIC. Chen ¶65, as part of migration of a VM from first server to second server “in addition to sending the target service configuration information to the destination server, the source server may send the storage location information [descriptor].” See Chen Fig. 4).
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 Griffy to include an unencrypted descriptor of a location of the data for the second entity to know location of the data to migrate (see Chen ¶65 and Fig. 4)
Claims 1, 6 and 14 recite a processor and method respectively. While the claims have slight difference in language, they recite similar matter to claim 1 and its dependent claims. Therefore, the claims are rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 8, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the descriptor is an unencrypted plaintext descriptor. (Chen does not encrypt the location information, see Chen Fig. 4).
Claims 5 and 15 recite a processor and method respectively. While the claims have slight difference in language, they recite similar matter to claim 2. Therefore, the claims are rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 9, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the first encrypted memory location is associated with a first virtual machine and the second encrypted memory location is associated with a second virtual machine. (Griffy, Fig. 1 and 4, in addition ¶91 for example, teaches both source and destination VMs are separate and encrypted).
Claim 18 recites a method. While the claim has slight difference in language, it recites similar matter to claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 10, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising: decrypting the data in the first encrypted memory location; encrypting the data using the key; and storing the data encrypted using the key in a plaintext buffer. (Griffy ¶93 teaches “the second host 700B will not utilize further encryption (e.g., an encryption circuit of NIC circuit/RDMA engine of the first host 700A will not utilize encryption) (e.g., set NO_ENCRYPT on HOST1 and HOST2's migration buffers), RDMA the (e.g., data encrypted by the key from HOST2 and in the) buffer to the new host. In certain embodiments, because NO_ENCRYPT is used, no further encryption operation will be performed on the data, but because the data in memory is already encrypted, the data will stay encrypted in transfer. In certain embodiments, second host 700B (e.g., memory controller circuit 716B) will store the transferred data into the memory 120B of the second host 700B, e.g., where it can be decrypted by that key provided by the second host 700B and execution of the VM can resume.”)
Claim 2 and 16 recite a processor and method. While the claims have slight difference in language, they recite similar matter to claim 10-12 of a source hypervisor VM and destination VM data migration decryption wherein the data is decrypted and encrypted. Therefore, the claim is rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 11, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the access location corresponds to the plaintext buffer. (Griffy ¶93 teaches the buffer is not encrypted [plaintext]).
Claim 3 recites a processor. While the claim has slight difference in language, it recites similar matter to claim 11. Therefore, the claim is rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 4, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The processor of claim 1, where the source memory location is an encrypted buffer of a virtual machine. (Griffy ¶69 “VM data (and VM code) is written out encrypted to a migration buffer”).
Claim 17 recites a method. While the claim has slight difference in language, it recites similar matter to claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 12, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the plaintext buffer is associated with a secure hypervisor. (Griffy ¶93 teaches each host has an unencrypted [plaintext] buffer which is associated with a VM; wherein Griffy ¶70 teaches a VM is associated with a hypervisor).
With respect to claim 13, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the access location corresponds to the first encrypted memory location of a confidential virtual machine. (Chen ¶65 teaches sharing the storage location [access location] which is location of first VM see Chen Fig. 4. In view of Griffy ¶39 “embodiments (e.g., platforms) herein use TME and/or MKTME to prevent an attacker with physical access to the machine from reading memory (e.g., and stealing any confidential information therein).” And Griffy Abstract teaching the VM is encrypted)
With respect to claim 19, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein at least one of the first NIC or the second NIC includes a data processing unit. (Griffy ¶58 discloses the NIC comprises circuit for encryption/decryption which is interpreted as a processor).
With respect to claim 20, Griffy in view of Chen disclose: The computer-implemented method of claim 14, further comprising: transmitting the data using at least one of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) or remote direct memory access (RDIA). (Griffy Fig. 1 and ¶49 teach data is exchanged using network/internet or in other words using TCP/IP which is standard in internet communication).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsirkin et al. (US 20230342172 A1) Abstract summarizes "virtual machine communication in a virtualized environment can include identifying an encrypted guest memory location of a virtual machine (VM), the encrypted guest memory location associated with a virtual device, and copying a first set of encrypted data from the encrypted guest memory location to hypervisor memory to create a copied set of encrypted data. They can also include comparing a second set of encrypted data from the encrypted guest memory location with the copied set of encrypted data, and responsive to detecting a difference between the second set of encrypted data and the copied set of encrypted data, requesting, unencrypted data comprising a request related to the virtual device.".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights