DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to request for continued examination filed 5/4/2026 in this application Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 19/087,225 (Filed March 21, 2025), claiming priority to Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/098,405 (Filed January 18, 2023), claiming priority to Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 16/892,508 (Filed June 4, 2020), claiming priority to Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 16/691,979 (Filed November 22, 2019) now U.S. Patent No. 11,048,501 claiming priority to Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 16/453,214 (Filed June 26, 2019) now U.S. Patent No. 10,656,937 claiming priority to Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 16/392,752 (Filed April 24, 2019) now U.S. Patent No. 10,579,369 claiming priority to Raghavan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 14/975,084 (Filed December 18, 2015) now U.S. Patent No. 10,379,843 (“Raghavan”). Claims 22 - 41 were pending. Claims 22, 31, 34, 37, 38, 41 are amended. Claims 22 - 41 are pending
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission of 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 6 – 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks (“Remarks”) stating that the filed terminal disclaimer of 4/13/2026 overcomes the previous double patenting rejection, examiner respectfully agrees. The 4/13/2026 TD has been approved and petition to withdraw TD of 12/29/2025 has been granted, please see petition decision of 9/11/2026.
2. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 7 – 9 of the Remarks stating that the prior art reference Pletcher fails to teach the newly amended limitations of preserving the backup information at storage repository that is different from the target system, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, § Claim 22.
Pletcher teaches capturing application data in the form of a compressed container at a particular time and storing the compressed container at a secondary location from the computing device on which it will be installed by disclosing an installation process which includes obtaining the compressed container by “download from a web service or other content source” to the installation target device and be accessed via a pointer to restore the application in a container at a later time. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at ¶ 0031 & fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container after download from web service or other content source).
Therefore, Pletcher teaches preserving the backup information at storage repository that is different from the target system.
3. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 9 - 13 of the Remarks stating that the prior art references fail to teach a container template as well as fail to teach a request to instantiate a container after creating a container template, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, § Claim 22.
Applicant argues that Cherukuri fails to teach creating a virtual container in response to a request and that the application template of Cherukuri is not a container template. Remarks at pgs. 10 & 12. However, the claims do not recite creating a virtual container, they claim “cause the container to be instantiated” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification would include configuring a container using a template.
In addition, the current claims only claim preserving in the backup information on which the container template is “associated with” the “state” of the application and “application data” and not any container data. The claims are silent as to any other element of the claimed container template.
As claimed, the container which is instantiated is done so “based on” the container template which was created from “information associated with” the backed-up application “state” and “data” and not container information. Thus, in alignment with the BRI of the newly amended claims, the instantiating of the container based on the container template associated with the backed-up is taught by Cherukuri’s disclosure of using backed-up application data in an application template [i.e. container template] to install an application on a container, thus configuring the container using the template information where the template information consists of application data. Id at ¶¶ 0034 - 0036, & 0077.
Therefore, the prior art teaches using a container template to instantiate a container.
4. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 14 – 15 of the Remarks stating that the prior art reference Han fails to teach backup information of an application configuration, examiner respectfully neither agrees nor disagrees, however, in the interest of compact prosecution prior art reference Han is added which teaches backing up and restoring an application configuration. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, § Claim 22. Han teaches a backup of an application configuration, such as settings, may be obtained and the configuration may be restored from a backup image of the configuration to reinstall the application. Han at col. 3 ln. 48 – col. 4 ln. 4; id. at col. 7 ll. 28 – 61; id. at col. 3 ll. 4 – 8 (restoring/rolling back an application image includes installation). Therefore, the prior art teaches backup information of an application configuration.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 22, 34, and 38 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 4, of respectively U.S. Patent No. 11,010,157. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Patent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Dependent claims 23 – 33, 35 – 37, and 39 – 41 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over, respectively, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,157. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the Patent and the art used in the dependent claims and associated motivation (see infra).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22 – 29 and 31 - 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodgers et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072235 (Published March 20, 2008, filed September 13, 2007) (“Rodgers”) in view of Pletcher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0161155 (Published June 11, 2015, filed December 8, 2013) (“Pletcher”), Han et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,152,391 (Patented December 11, 2018, filed February 28, 2014) (“Han”), and Cherukuri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0005255 (Published January 5, 2012, filed June 30, 2010) (“Cherukuri”).
Claims 22, 34, and 38
With respect to claims 22, 34, and 38, Rodgers teaches the invention as claimed including a system comprising: a processing system; and one or more computer readable storage media, operatively coupled to the processing system, including program instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to: {A system for reification is performed by a computing system and associated software executing on hardware. Rodgers at ¶¶ 0100 – 0102 (reification system executed by a computing device).}
However, Rodgers does not explicitly teach the limitation:
preserve, at a secondary storage repository different from a target system, backup information associated with a state of an application at a first time, wherein the backup information comprises information associated with application data at the first time, … receive, at a second time subsequent to the first time, a request to instantiate a container, on the target system, for the application to be restored in the state corresponding to the first time; create a container … and wherein the application is restored based at least in part on the backup information. {Pletcher does teach this limitation. Pletcher teaches that the reification environment taught by Rodgers may include capturing application data in the form of a compressed container at a particular time and storing the compressed container at a secondary location from the computing device on which it will be installed by disclosing an installation process which includes obtaining the compressed container by “download from a web service or other content source” to the installation target device and be accessed via a pointer to restore the application in a container at a later time. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at ¶ 0031 & fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container after download from web service or other content source).
Rodgers and Pletcher are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to identify components of a software system in a useful addressable manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine a method of reification, as taught in Rodgers, with capturing application data and configurations at particular times, as taught in Pletcher. Pletcher teaches that using pointers to identify application data helps with storage space concerns at the location of application execution. Id. at ¶¶ 0001, 0002, 0013 & 0014. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a method of reification, as taught in Rodgers, with capturing application data and configurations at particular times, as taught in Pletcher, for the purposes of polymorphism and to save on storage space at an execution location.}
However, Rodgers and Pletcher do not explicitly teach the limitation:
and wherein the backup information comprises information associated with a configuration of the application at the first time; {Han does teach this limitation. Han teaches that the application reification method of using pointers to application data in secondary storage as taught by Rodgers and Pletcher may include capturing a backup of an application configuration, such as settings, and may include where the configuration may be restored from a backup image of the configuration to reinstall the application. Han at col. 3 ln. 48 – col. 4 ln. 4; id. at col. 7 ll. 28 – 61; id. at col. 3 ll. 4 – 8 (restoring/rolling back an application image includes installation).
Rodgers, Pletcher, and Han are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to identify components of a software system in a useful addressable manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine a method of application reification using pointers to application data in secondary storage, as taught in Rodgers and Pletcher, with capturing and storing the application configuration, as taught in Han. Pletcher teaches that containers may be used to hold application data. Id. at ¶ 0050. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a method of application reification using pointers to application data in secondary storage, as taught in Rodgers and Pletcher, with capturing and storing the application configuration, as taught in Han, for the purpose of using a known format for application data storage to store application data such as configuration data.}
However, Rodgers, Pletcher, and Han do not explicitly teach the limitation:
template, wherein the container template comprises information associated with the backup information; and in response to the request and after creating the container template, cause the container to be instantiated on the target system, based at least in part on the container [template], wherein the application is restored on the instantiated container, {Cherukuri does teach this limitation. Cherukuri teaches that the application reification method which stores application data taught by Rodgers, Pletcher, and Han may include storing the application data and configurations in an application template which will later be used to execute the application in a container. Cherukuri at ¶¶ 0034 - 0036, & 0077.
Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to improve verification at various stages of development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine a method to store application data in a template-type container, as taught in Rodgers, Pletcher, and Han, with using a template to hold the application data, as taught in Cherukuri. Pletcher teaches that template-type containers may be used to hold application data. Id. at ¶ 0050. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a method to store application data in a template-type container, as taught in Rodgers, Pletcher, and Han, with using a template to hold the application data, as taught in Cherukuri, for the purpose of using a structured format to store data.}
Claim 23
With respect to claim 23, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the container template comprises a data version pointer associated with the application data at the first time. {Redirect pointers are used to retrieve the application data template from the secondary store repository 102. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container); Cherukuri at ¶¶ 0034 - 0036, & 0077 (template).}
Claim 24
With respect to claim 24, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the data version pointer points to data stored in the secondary storage repository. {Redirect pointers are used to retrieve the application data from the secondary store repository 102. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container).}
Claim 25
With respect to claim 25, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the target system is a host system, wherein the application is executing natively on the host system at the first time. {Executing application data is captured from a host system at a particular first time, stored it at a secondary location from the application, and accessed via a pointer to restore the application in a container on the host system at a later time. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container).
Claim 26
With respect to claim 26, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the configuration of the application includes parameters of the application to replicate processing results of the application corresponding to the first time. {Kernel replicates the pattern described for TRANSREPT post-processing … and an appropriate Executable Action used to indicate the processing action.” Rodgers at ¶ 0071.}
Claim 27
With respect to claim 27, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to: perform a data integrity check on a portion of the backup information. {Validation is performed on the version of the application data. Pletcher at ¶ 0039.}
Claim 28
With respect to claim 28, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to: provide an amount of computing resources to restore the application at the state corresponding to the first time in the container on the target system. {“The resources module may allot and/or manage the resources (e.g., memory, etc.) for proper execution of the functions.” Cherukuri at ¶¶ 0061 - 0063.}
Claim 29
With respect to claim 29, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the amount of computing resources is equal to or scaled from a production environment for the application at the first time. {“The resources module may allot and/or manage the resources (e.g., memory, etc.) for proper execution of the functions.” Cherukuri at ¶¶ 0061 - 0063.}
Claims 31, 37, and 41
With respect to claims 31, 37, and 41, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to: execute the application in the instantiated container, in accordance with the state corresponding to the first time. {Executing application data is captured at a particular time and stored it at a secondary location from the application to be accessed via a pointer to restore the application in a container at a later time. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container).}
Claims 32, 35, 39
With respect to claims 32, 35, 39, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to: execute the application in the instantiated container, wherein the executing application is in the state corresponding to the first time. {The configuration may be restored from a backup image of the configuration to reinstall the application. Han at col. 3 ln. 48 – col. 4 ln. 4; id. at col. 7 ll. 28 – 61; id. at col. 3 ll. 4 – 8 (restoring/rolling back an application image includes installation).}
Claims 33, 36, and 40
With respect to claims 33, 36, and 40, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the container [template] comprises the information associated with the application data at the first time. {Executing application data is captured at a particular time and stored it at a secondary location from the application to be accessed via a pointer to restore the application in a container at a later time. Pletcher at Abstract (pointer); id. at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003 (compress OS and user data and restore from compressed file); id. at ¶¶ 0022 & 0033 (application state data is “included in compressed container 102”); id. at ¶ 0023 (configuration information); id. at ¶¶ 0050 & 0053 (timestamps); id. at fig. 1 (first portion of memory area holds compressed container).}
template {Storing the application data and configurations in a template which will later be used to execute the application in a container. Cherukuri at ¶¶ 0034 - 0036, & 0077.}
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodgers in view of Pletcher, Han, Cherukuri, and Lipchuk et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0347165 (Published December 3, 2015, filed May 28, 2014) (“Lipchuk”).
Claim 30
With respect to claim 30, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri teach the invention as claimed, however, Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri do not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the container template comprises an indicator associated with a snapshot of the application data at the first time. {Lipchuk does teach this limitation. Lipchuk teaches that the application reification method which stores application data and configurations saved as templates as taught by Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri may include where the templates may be a virtual machine snapshot that “saves the data currently present in a virtual machine hard disk image as a read-only volume and allows for a recovery to the disk image state as it existed at the time the snapshot was taken.” Lipchuk at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0019 - 0022.
Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, Cherukuri, and Lipchuk are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to improve verification at various stages of development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine storing application data and configurations saved as templates, as taught in Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri, with using a VM snapshot, as taught in Lipchuk. Lipchuk teaches that its snapshots act as a restore point. Id. at ¶ 0021. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine storing application data and configurations saved as templates, as taught in Rodgers, Pletcher, Han, and Cherukuri, with using a VM snapshot, as taught in Lipchuk, for the purpose of using a known system restore point creation mechanism with a method that requires restoring systems from particular stored points.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/T.H./ September 12, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights