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
This action is responsive to the application filed on February 18th 2025.
This application is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/113710 filed August 18th 2023.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on April 7th 2025. Applicant amended claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 20. Claims 1 – 20 remain pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on February 18th 2025 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, limitation 3, “...and cording to..." should be “according to.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 5, 7 – 10, 13, and 15 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20220398119 A1) in view of Koorevaar et al. (US 20130332983 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method comprising:
Receiving, from a first tenant, a first virtual instance creation (the VM) request comprising first specification (VM specification) information of a to-be-created first virtual instance and first application information (See in Kim, ¶107, which teaches system configurations)
about a first cloud native application (See in Kim, ¶80, which teaches a monitoring agent)
to which the to-be-created first virtual instance belongs (Fig. 10, Elem: S610 & S630, ¶153-154, which teaches where the service developer or the user (the claimed first tenant) can request a creation of a VM, and where the VM creation request can include virtual VM specification);
selecting to create the to-be-created first virtual instance as a first virtual instance on a first computing node (See in Kim, ¶86, 156 – 157, which teaches distributing a container to a suitable node and operating and managing the container in the node) based on the first computing node being in a first cloud data center and being able to provide a specification matching the first specification information (Fig. 10, Elem: S670-680, ¶160 – 163, which teaches where the container execution management may create a virtual machine based on the results and the virtual VM management unit may map the container information to the created virtual machine);
Kim fails to teach configuring, based on the first application information, a first virtual instance manager of the first computing node to mark, with a first identifier of the first cloud native application, a first service packet from the first virtual instance.
However, Koorevaar is in the same field of invention of virtual machines and cloud environments. (See in Koorevar, ¶19)
Koorevaar discloses that each VM (virtual machine) has a running hypervisor (the claimed virtual instance manager) that manages the VMs and inserts this appID into the packets emitted by a VM (See in Koorevaar, ¶42 & ¶53).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s method to include Koorevaar’s hypervisor that could manage the VMs and insert application identification. In doing so, it would provide an ease of access to track which packets are sent to which virtual machine.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first virtual instance creation request further comprises first site information, and wherein the method further comprises selecting, from a plurality of cloud data centers deployed in a distributed manner, the first cloud data center that matches the first site information. (See in Kim, ¶131-136, which teaches where the container orchestration tool may create the namespace (the claimed first site information) corresponding to the resources of the container orchestration tool and may map out the namespace to the results of creation of the virtual clouds).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein before receiving the second security rule, the method further comprises:
receiving, from the first tenant or a second tenant, a second virtual instance creation request comprising second specification information of a to-be-created second virtual instance and second application information about the second cloud native application to which the to-be-created second virtual instance belongs (See in Kim, ¶54-56, which teaches where a system operator (the claimed tenant) can receive a request of a virtual machine cluster and create multiple virtual clouds suitable for the demand);
selecting to create the second virtual instance on the second computing node based on the second computing node being in a second cloud data center and being able to provide a specification matching the second specification information (See in Kim, ¶77-78, which talks of a virtual VM management unit receiving a request to create a virtual machine, and the virtual VM management unit executing the request on the container orchestration tool for a target virtual cloud);
Kim fails to teach configuring, based on the second application information, the second virtual instance manager to mark, with a third identifier of the second cloud native application, a third service packet from the second virtual instance.
However, Koorevaar is in the same field of invention of virtual machines and cloud environments. (See in Koorevar, ¶19)
Koorevaar discloses that each VM (virtual machine) has a running hypervisor (the claimed virtual instance manager) that manages the VMs and inserts this appID into the packets emitted by a VM (See in Koorevaar, ¶42).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kim’s method based on the teachings of Koorevaar in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kim fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein configuring the first virtual instance manager to mark the first service packet comprises configuring the first virtual instance manager to:
encapsulate the first service packet into an inner packet of an overlay packet;
and set the first identifier in an outer packet of the overlay packet.
However, Koorevaar is in the same field of invention of virtual machines and cloud environments. (See in Koorevaar, ¶19)
Koorevaar teaches packet encapsulating and modifying certain bits in the packet header. (See in Koorevaar, ¶30). Koorevaar then discloses where a hypervisor can insert this AppID into the packets that are emitted by a VM. (See in Koorevaar, ¶42)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kim’s method based on the teachings of Koorevaar in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the method according to claim 1, wherein the first virtual instance comprises a virtual machine or a container. (See in Kim, ¶153, which teaches the user (the claimed tenant) may request to create a virtual machine).
Independent and dependent system claims 9 – 10, 13, 15 – 16, and 18- 19 merely represent a different category of invention from method claims 1 – 2, 5, and 7 - 8 but with similar scope. Therefore claims 9 – 10, 13, 15 – 16, and 18 – 19 are rejected based on the same rationale given for claims 1 – 2, 5, and 7 - 8 above.
Claims 3 – 4, 6, 11 – 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20220398119 A1) in view of Koorevaar et al. (US 20130332983 A1) and in view of Kung et al. (US 20180234459 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Koorevaar fail to teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the first tenant, a first security rule indicating permission to access the first cloud native application;
and configuring the first virtual instance manager to record the first security rule
However, Kung is in the same field of invention of allowing virtual instances to be hosted in cloud environments that can be connected through datacenter networks. (See in Kung, ¶76)
Kung teaches where a given set of users (the claimed tenant) and workload units (the claimed virtual instances). An application-level security policy specification defines a rule for a workload and a user about who can communicate through each other as well as which service they are allowed. (See in Kung, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, Elem: R1 – R6, ¶66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s method to include a security rule. In doing so, it would provide an ease of access who is able to access certain services.
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Koorevaar fail to teach the method according to claim 1, comprising:
receiving, from the first tenant, a second security rule indicating permission of the first cloud native application to access
and configuring a second virtual instance manager of a second computing node to record a second identifier of the first cloud native application and the second security rule, wherein a destination address of the first service packet is a second virtual instance deployed on the second computing node;
and configuring the second virtual instance manager, when determining that the first identifier.
However, Kung is in the same field of invention of allowing virtual instances to be hosted in cloud environments that can be connected through datacenter networks. (See in Kung, ¶76)
Kung teaches where there is a given set of users (the claimed tenant) and workload units (the claimed virtual instances), an application levels security policy specification defines a rule for which workload and user can communicate through each other as well as which service they are allowed to access. (See in Kung, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, ¶66) . The nodes (the claimed second virtual instance manager) include a native security mechanism. (See in Kung, Fig. 5, Elem: 510, 514, ¶75) A network security mechanism will then intercept network traffic at a given point during the communication path and check against a set of network security rules that are specified by a set of matching conditions and action (See in Kung, ¶78).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s method to include a plurality of security rules. In doing so, it would expand further of who can and can’t access certain environments.
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Koorevaar fail to teach the method according to claim 4, further comprising:
setting a first network interface for the first cloud native application, wherein the first network interface is set in the first cloud data center;
binding at least one first virtual instance running one or more first microservices in the first cloud native application to the first network interface, wherein the at least one first virtual instance comprises the first virtual instance; and
setting a second network interface for the second cloud native application, wherein the second network interface is set in a second cloud data center indicated by second site information;
connecting the first network interface and the second network interface to each other through a cloud native network set in an infrastructure managed by a cloud management platform;
and binding at least one virtual instance running one or more second microservices in the second cloud native application to the second network interface, wherein the at least one virtual instance running the one or more second microservices comprises the second virtual instance.
However, Kung is in the same field of invention of allowing virtual instances to be hosted in cloud environments that can be connected through datacenter networks. (See in Kung, ¶76)
Kung teaches where the contextual security platform can offer APIs that can be used by the external system as well as user interfaces to configure the system model and define application level polices. These external software deployment systems can use the contextual platform API which node, server, VPC, or compute environment workloads are deployed. (See in Kung, ¶90)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kim’s method based on the teachings of Kung’s teaching in accordance to the rationale given for claim 3.
Independent and dependent system claims 11 – 12, 14, 17, and 20 merely represent a different category of invention from method claims 3 – 4 and 6 but with similar scope. Therefor claims 11 – 12, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected based on the same rationale given for 3 – 4 and 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELINE AYLIN IMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0247. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/CELINE AYLIN IMANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2457
08/20/2026
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights