DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains a hyphen in “receive a request to verify enforcement-of”, which appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests the amendment “receive a request to verify enforcement[[-]] of”.
Examiner notes that claim 1 contains a strikethrough (“workload.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,381,783. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare patented claims 1, 9, and 20 with instant claims 1, 15, and 18:
U.S. Pat. 12,381,783
App. No. 19/262,031
1. A device, comprising:
a processor;
at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a workload protection logic that is configured to:
1. A device, comprising:
a processor;
at least one network interface controller; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a workload protection logic that is configured to:
receive a request to verify enforcement;
determine at least one workspace associated with the request, wherein each workspace comprises one or more workloads;
receive a request to verify enforcement-of at least one workspace comprising one or more workload;
evaluate the configuration of each of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least validating if an agent is enabled for enforcement; and
evaluate the configuration of at least one of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least validating if an agent is enabled for enforcement; and
generate an enforcement validation status based on the evaluated configuration of each of the one or more workloads.
generate an enforcement validation status for the at least one workloads.
U.S. Pat. 12,381,783
App. No. 19/262,031
1. A device, comprising:
a processor;
at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a workload protection logic that is configured to:
15. A device, comprising:
a processor;
at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a workload protection logic that is configured to:
receive a request to verify enforcement;
determine at least one workspace associated with the request, wherein each workspace comprises one or more workloads;
determine one or more workloads associated with an enforcement validation request;
evaluate the configuration of each of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least validating if an agent is enabled for enforcement; and
9. The device of claim 1, wherein the evaluated configuration comprises at least evaluating one or more policy ranges.
evaluate the configuration of at least one of the one or more workloads, wherein the evaluation comprises at least evaluating one or more policy ranges; and
generate an enforcement validation status based on the evaluated configuration of each of the one or more workloads.
generate an enforcement validation status based on the evaluated configuration of the at least one the one or more workloads.
U.S. Pat. 12,381,783
App. No. 19/262,031
20. A method of initiating workload enforcement, comprising:
18. A method of initiating workload enforcement, comprising:
receiving an enforcement validation request;
receiving an enforcement validation request;
determining one or more workloads associated with the enforcement validation request;
determining one or more workloads associated with the enforcement validation request;
evaluating at least one configuration of each of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least determining if a policy has been approved for enforcement;
evaluating a configuration for at least one of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least determining if a policy has been approved for enforcement; and
generating an enforcement validation status based on the evaluated configuration of each of the one or more workloads; and
generating an enforcement validation status based on the evaluated configuration of the at least one the one or more workloads.
displaying the enforcement validation status on a graphical user interface.
Instant dependent claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are also anticipated by the patented claims and rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haskins et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0173728), hereinafter Haskins.
Regarding claim 15, Haskins disclosed a device (component, ¶[0018]), comprising:
a processor (processor, ¶[0018]);
at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (components operational over networks, ¶[0018], inherently requiring at least one network interface controller); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a workload protection logic (non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, i.e., logic, ¶[0018]) that is configured to:
determine one or more workloads associated with an enforcement validation request receiving a request, i.e., enforcement validation request, ¶[0046]; identifying, i.e., determining, a workload associated with the request, ¶[0048]);
evaluate the configuration of at least one of the one or more workloads (evaluating each resource for its stage of readiness, ¶[0052]), wherein the evaluation comprises at least evaluating one or more policy ranges (evaluating policies in view of resources, ¶[0052]); and
generate an enforcement validation status based on the evaluated configuration of the at least one the one or more workloads (visually presenting, i.e., generating, the stage of readiness for each resource, i.e., enforcement validation status, ¶[0042]).
Regarding claim 16, Haskins disclosed the device wherein the workload protection logic is further configured to display the enforcement validation status on a graphical user interface (visually presenting, i.e., displaying, the stage of readiness for each resource, i.e., enforcement validation status, ¶[0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are allowable over the prior art with regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, pending the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and pending the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the specific method, system, and product as set forth in the Specification, ¶[0099]-[0105], [0113]-[0122], Fig. 6 and 8, and recited in independent claims 1 and 18, in particular comprising:
evaluate the configuration of at least one of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least validating if an agent is enabled for enforcement (claim 1, emphasis added).
evaluating a configuration for at least one of the one or more workloads wherein the evaluation comprises at least determining if a policy has been approved for enforcement (claim 18, emphasis added).
These limitations, in conjunction with the other limitations of the independent claims, are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
