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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12348646 (hereinafter ‘646). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the enumerated, instant claims in following table is anticipated by a correspondingly mapped ‘646 claim.
Instant claims
‘646 claims
1, 10, 11. A method for validating a software image of a virtual instance deployed in a computing environment, comprising:
detecting a virtual instance deployed in a computing environment, the virtual instance deployed based on a software image;
detecting an identifier of the software image;
accessing a repository to retrieve the software image based on the detected identifier;
validating the retrieved software image;
determining that the retrieved software image is an invalid software image; and initiating a mitigation action in the computing environment in response to determining that the retrieved software image is an invalid software image.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting the virtual instance utilizing an admission controller of a software container cluster deployed in the computing environment to detect the virtual instance, wherein the virtual instance is deployed in the software container cluster.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a public key of the software image, wherein the software image is a signed software image; and validating the software image by decrypting the signed software image using the public key.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: deprovisioning the virtual instance in response to detecting that the validation of the software image is unsuccessful.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: sandboxing the virtual instance, revoking access to the virtual instance, revoking access from the virtual instance, deprovisioning the virtual instance, and any combination thereof.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the virtual instance is deployed based on an unvalidated software image; and deprovisioning the virtual instance in response to determining deployment based on an unvalidated software image.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: detecting a prior version of the software image; determining that the prior version of the software image is a valid software image; and [a] deploying the earlier version of the software image, in response to determining that the earlier version is a validated version (maps to ‘646, claims 6 and 7).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: generating an alert, generating a notification, generating a ticket, and any combination thereof.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: parsing an identifier of the virtual instance to detect an identifier of the repository; and accessing the repository corresponding to the repository identifier.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: detect the virtual instance utilizing an admission controller of a software container cluster deployed in the computing environment to detect the virtual instance, wherein the virtual instance is deployed in the software container cluster.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: access a public key of the software image, wherein the software image is a signed software image; and validate the software image by decrypting the signed software image using the public key.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: deprovision the virtual instance in response to detecting that the validation of the software image is unsuccessful.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: sandboxing the virtual instance, revoking access to the virtual instance, revoking access from the virtual instance, deprovisioning the virtual instance, and any combination thereof.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to:
determine that the virtual instance is deployed based on an unvalidated software image; and deprovision the virtual instance in response to determining deployment based on an unvalidated software image (maps to ‘646, claims 16 and 17).
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: detect a prior version of the software image; determine that the prior version of the software image is a valid software image; and deploy the earlier version of the software image, in response to determining that the earlier version is a validated version (maps to ‘646, claims 16 and 17).
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: generating an alert, generating a notification, generating a ticket, and any combination thereof.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: parse an identifier of the virtual instance to detect an identifier of the repository; and access the repository corresponding to the repository identifier.
1, 10, 11. A method for validating a software image of a virtual instance deployed in a computing environment, comprising:
detecting a virtual instance deployed in a computing environment, the virtual instance deployed based on a software image;
detecting an image name of the software image;
accessing an image software repository to retrieve the software image based on the detected image name;
initiating validation of the retrieved software image and;
initiating a mitigation action on the virtual instance in response to detecting that the retrieved software image is an invalid software image.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring an admission controller of a software container cluster deployed in the computing environment to detect the virtual instance, wherein the virtual instance is a software container deployed in the software container cluster.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a public key of the software image, wherein the software image is a signed software image; and performing validation by decrypting the signed software image using the public key.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: revoking the virtual instance in response to detecting that the validation of the software image is unsuccessful.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: sandboxing the virtual instance, revoking access to the virtual instance, revoking access from the virtual instance, deprovisioning the virtual instance, and any combination thereof.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an earlier version of the software image; deprovisioning the virtual instance in response to detecting that the retrieved software image is an invalid software image; and [a] deploying the earlier version of the software image, in response to determining that the earlier version is a validated version.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: validating the earlier version of the software image.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: generating an alert, generating a notification, generating a ticket, and any combination thereof.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: parsing a name of the virtual instance to detect a repository identifier; and accessing an image software repository corresponding to the repository identifier.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: configure an admission controller of a software container cluster deployed in the computing environment to detect the virtual instance, wherein the virtual instance is a software container deployed in the software container cluster.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: access a public key of the software image, wherein the software image is a signed software image; and perform validation by decrypting the signed software image using the public key.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: revoke the virtual instance in response to detecting that the validation of the software image is unsuccessful.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: sandboxing the virtual instance, revoking access to the virtual instance, revoking access from the virtual instance, deprovisioning the virtual instance, and any combination thereof.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to:
detect an earlier version of the software image; deprovision the virtual instance in response to detecting that the retrieved software image is an invalid software image; and deploy the earlier version of the software image, in response to determining that the earlier version is a validated version.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: validate the earlier version of the software image.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the mitigation action includes any one of: generating an alert, generating a notification, generating a ticket, and any combination thereof.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory contains further instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry further configure the system to: parse a name of the virtual instance to detect a repository identifier; and access an image software repository corresponding to the repository identifier.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tseng: (US 20210124593): “…the electronic device 100 has a public key…. The server 200 has a private key…. The controller 120 of the electronic device 100 verifies the received boot image BI by using the public key…After the electronic device 100 obtains the boot image BI, the electronic device 100 verifies the digital signature of the boot image BI by using the public key, calculates the one or more checksums or the one or more hash values of the boot image BI, and compares the one or more checksums or the one or more hash values respectively to verify whether the digital signature is correct. When the digital signature is correct, the electronic device 100 can execute the verified boot image BI to execute the boot program (par. 0033).
Doane (US 20150254451): “A vendor of virtual machine images accesses a virtual computer system service to upload a digitally signed virtual machine image to a data store usable by customers of the virtual computer system service to select an image for creating a virtual machine instance. If a digital certificate is uploaded along with the virtual machine image, the virtual computer system service may determine whether the digital certificate has been trusted for use. If the digital certificate has been trusted for use, the virtual computer system service may use a public cryptographic key to decrypt a hash signature included with the image to obtain a first hash value. The service may additionally apply a hash function to the image itself to obtain a second hash value. If the two hash values match, then the virtual machine image may be deemed to be authentic” (abstract).
Garcia (US 20160350535): FIG. 1G shows an example process for initiating a boot of an operating system through an encrypted virtual machine image 110b. At step 140, in response to a client request to initiate the boot of an operating system associated with virtual machine image 110b, the pre-boot execution environment 116 transmits a signal or “call” to the image service 120 to initiate retrieval of the encryption boot loader 112b from the trustee 170….at step 142, in response to the signal received from the pre-boot execution environment 116, the image service 120 may verify the identity of the requesting virtual machine instance using an image verification engine 124 that communicates with the public cloud computing platform 162 via an application programming interface (API).” (par. 0031).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights