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
1. The following is a non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s arguments/filing filed on July 21, 2025
Claims 1-20 are pending
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph 0067 of the specification defines a processing resource as being a general-purpose or special-purpose processor.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s drawings submitted on 7/21/2025.
Oath/Declaration
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s oath submitted on 7/21/2025
Application Data Sheet
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s application data sheet submitted on 7/21/2025.
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 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 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.
1.) Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150301823, Hatakeyama in view of US 20130247030, Kay
In regards to claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:obtaining a signed digest associated with an original cloud image of a software product of a software publisher(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, fig. 9, step S14, where an image file is signed), wherein the original cloud image includes an executable portion and a metadata portion (US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, fig. 9, where the image includes plain text(S10) [i.e. note: executables] and added metadata(S16))and wherein the signed digest is created without reference to the metadata portion (US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0089, The package creating software regards the compressed image file 212 as one file, and allocates logical blocks having consecutive numbers to the image file 212. The package creating software attaches a signature to each of the plurality of blocks constituting the compressed image file 212, or specifically obtains a hash value of each piece of block data, and performs encryption (S14). The hash value of each piece of block data is added to the encrypted image file 213 as one piece of metadata included in a metadata region 208 (S16).[i.e. note: the signature is performed on the image data and does not include hashing the metadata]);downloading a published cloud image representing a published version of the software product, wherein the published cloud image includes an executable portion and a metadata portion, wherein the metadata portion of the published cloud image is modified prior to publication of the published version of the software product(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0111, The patch file also has a data structure similar to that of the present game software. Specifically, as described above, the patch file[i.e. note: modified file] also has a nested data structure, and has game data formed as compressed, signed, and encrypted data. Incidentally, the game software is recorded as a non-rewritable image file on the ROM medium 44, or distributed from the content server 12 and recorded onto the auxiliary storage device 2. The patch file is downloaded from the content server 12 at an appropriate time and recorded onto the auxiliary storage device 2, and substituted in a pseudo manner and used in file units or data block units by path overlay processing.); and Hatakeyama does not teach performing a verification of the published cloud image that accommodates potential alteration of the metadata portion of the published cloud image prior to publication of the published version of the software product by verifying the signed digest against a newly generated digest associated with the published cloud image that is created without reference to the metadata portion of the published cloud image However, Kay teaches performing a verification of the published cloud image that accommodates potential alteration of the metadata portion of the published cloud image prior to publication of the published version of the software product by verifying the signed digest against a newly generated digest associated with the published cloud image that is created without reference to the metadata portion of the published cloud image (US 20130247030, Kay, para. 0054, With inline installation, a user knows exactly what is being installed, such that a developer may not have two items (e.g., A and B) presented in a digital marketplace or website, where A is a benign-seeming application and B is a malicious looking application, and include the inline install metadata for A but actually install B…a user may download the web application or browser extension from the developer's server, but before installing(i.e. note: publication) any downloaded data, the browser application 112 may verify that the downloaded data matches the item for which the window 406 was shown (for example, verifying the downloaded data using a cryptographic signature)[e.g. note: before installing a patch of an image, the metadata is initially verified]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hatakeyama with the teaching of Kay because a user would have been motivated to use a browser application, taught by Kay, in order to evaluate potential security issues of an application before installing an image on the system taught by Hatakeyama(Kay, para. 0036)
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed in the background by a management platform through which a user has the ability to set up and deploy the software product on one or more compute instances provided by a cloud provider from which the published cloud image was downloaded(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0052, Incidentally, after the information processing device 10 has obtained all of the files belonging to the first group 72a and started the game software 70, the information processing device 10 downloads the files belonging to the following groups 72 in the background.).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 3, wherein the management platform includes a user interface through which a result of said verifying is displayed to the user(US 20130247030, Kay, para. 0062, The processor 602 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 600, including instructions stored in the memory 604 or on the storage device 606 to display graphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, such as display 616 coupled to high speed interface 608.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hatakeyama with the teaching of Kay because a user would have been motivated to use a browser application, taught by Kay, in order to evaluate potential security issues of an application before installing an image on the system taught by Hatakeyama(Kay, para. 0036)
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata portion of the published cloud image comprises a header, footer, leading portion or trailing portion of the published cloud image(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0086, In the compressed image file 212, a compression table indicating relation between the blocks of the files before the compression and after the compression is written to a metadata region 205. The size of the plain text image file 210 before the compression is described in the header part of the compression table).
In regards to claim 8, Hatakeyama teaches a system comprising:one or more processing resources; andinstructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources cause the system to:obtain a signed digest associated with an original cloud image of a software product of a software publisher(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, fig. 9, step S14, where an image file is signed), wherein the original cloud image includes an executable portion and a metadata portion (US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, fig. 9, where the image includes plain text(S10) [i.e. note: executables] and added metadata(S16)) and wherein the signed digest is created without reference to the metadata portion(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0089, The package creating software regards the compressed image file 212 as one file, and allocates logical blocks having consecutive numbers to the image file 212. The package creating software attaches a signature to each of the plurality of blocks constituting the compressed image file 212, or specifically obtains a hash value of each piece of block data, and performs encryption (S14). The hash value of each piece of block data is added to the encrypted image file 213 as one piece of metadata included in a metadata region 208 (S16).[i.e. note: the signature is performed on the image data and does not include hashing the metadata]);download a published cloud image representing a published version of the software product, wherein the published cloud image includes an executable portion and a metadata portion , wherein the metadata portion of the published cloud image is modified prior to publication of the published version of the software product(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0111, The patch file also has a data structure similar to that of the present game software. Specifically, as described above, the patch file[i.e. note: modified file] also has a nested data structure, and has game data formed as compressed, signed, and encrypted data. Incidentally, the game software is recorded as a non-rewritable image file on the ROM medium 44, or distributed from the content server 12 and recorded onto the auxiliary storage device 2. The patch file is downloaded from the content server 12 at an appropriate time and recorded onto the auxiliary storage device 2, and substituted in a pseudo manner and used in file units or data block units by path overlay processing.); and Hatakeyama does not teach perform a verification of the published cloud image that accommodates potential alteration of the metadata portion of the published cloud image prior to publication of the published version of the software product by verifying the signed digest against a newly generated digest associated with the published cloud image that is created without reference to the metadata portion of the published cloud image However, Kay teaches perform a verification of the published cloud image that accommodates potential alteration of the metadata portion of the published cloud image prior to publication of the published version of the software product by verifying the signed digest against a newly generated digest associated with the published cloud image that is created without reference to the metadata portion of the published cloud image(US 20130247030, Kay, para. 0054, With inline installation, a user knows exactly what is being installed, such that a developer may not have two items (e.g., A and B) presented in a digital marketplace or website, where A is a benign-seeming application and B is a malicious looking application, and include the inline install metadata for A but actually install B…a user may download the web application or browser extension from the developer's server, but before installing(i.e. note: publication) any downloaded data, the browser application 112 may verify that the downloaded data matches the item for which the window 406 was shown (for example, verifying the downloaded data using a cryptographic signature)[e.g. note: before installing a patch of an image, the metadata is initially verified]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hatakeyama with the teaching of Kay because a user would have been motivated to use a browser application, taught by Kay, in order to evaluate potential security issues of an application before installing an image on the system taught by Hatakeyama(Kay, para. 0036)
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the system of claim 8, wherein obtaining of the signed digest, downloading of the published cloud image, and performing the verification are performed in the background by a management platform through which a user has the ability to set up and deploy the software product on one or more compute instances provided by a cloud provider from which the published cloud image was downloaded(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0052, Incidentally, after the information processing device 10 has obtained all of the files belonging to the first group 72a and started the game software 70, the information processing device 10 downloads the files belonging to the following groups 72 in the background.).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the system of claim 10, wherein the management platform includes a user interface through which a result of said verifying is displayed to the user(US 20130247030, Kay, para. 0062, The processor 602 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 600, including instructions stored in the memory 604 or on the storage device 606 to display graphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, such as display 616 coupled to high speed interface 608.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hatakeyama with the teaching of Kay because a user would have been motivated to use a browser application, taught by Kay, in order to evaluate potential security issues of an application before installing an image on the system taught by Hatakeyama(Kay, para. 0036)
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the system of claim 8, wherein the metadata portion of the published cloud image comprises a header, footer, leading portion or trailing portion of the published cloud image(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0086, In the compressed image file 212, a compression table indicating relation between the blocks of the files before the compression and after the compression is written to a metadata region 205. The size of the plain text image file 210 before the compression is described in the header part of the compression table).
In regards to claim 14, Hatakeyama teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resources of a system, cause the system to:obtain a signed digest associated with an original cloud image of a software product of a software publisher(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, fig. 9, step S14, where an image file is signed), wherein the original cloud image includes an executable portion and a metadata portion (US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, fig. 9, where the image includes plain text(S10) [i.e. note: executables] and added metadata(S16)) and wherein the signed digest is created without reference to the metadata portion(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0089, The package creating software regards the compressed image file 212 as one file, and allocates logical blocks having consecutive numbers to the image file 212. The package creating software attaches a signature to each of the plurality of blocks constituting the compressed image file 212, or specifically obtains a hash value of each piece of block data, and performs encryption (S14). The hash value of each piece of block data is added to the encrypted image file 213 as one piece of metadata included in a metadata region 208 (S16).[i.e. note: the signature is performed on the image data and does not include hashing the metadata]);download a published cloud image representing a published version of the software product, wherein the published cloud image includes an executable portion and a metadata portion, wherein the metadata portion of the published cloud image is modified prior to publication of the published version of the software product(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0111, The patch file also has a data structure similar to that of the present game software. Specifically, as described above, the patch file[i.e. note: modified file] also has a nested data structure, and has game data formed as compressed, signed, and encrypted data. Incidentally, the game software is recorded as a non-rewritable image file on the ROM medium 44, or distributed from the content server 12 and recorded onto the auxiliary storage device 2. The patch file is downloaded from the content server 12 at an appropriate time and recorded onto the auxiliary storage device 2, and substituted in a pseudo manner and used in file units or data block units by path overlay processing.); and Hatakeyama does not teach perform a verification of the published cloud image that accommodates potential alteration of the metadata portion of the published cloud image prior to publication of the published version of the software product by verifying the signed digest against a newly generated digest associated with the published cloud image that is created without reference to the metadata portion of the published cloud image However, Kay teaches perform a verification of the published cloud image that accommodates potential alteration of the metadata portion of the published cloud image prior to publication of the published version of the software product by verifying the signed digest against a newly generated digest associated with the published cloud image that is created without reference to the metadata portion of the published cloud image (US 20130247030, Kay, para. 0054, With inline installation, a user knows exactly what is being installed, such that a developer may not have two items (e.g., A and B) presented in a digital marketplace or website, where A is a benign-seeming application and B is a malicious looking application, and include the inline install metadata for A but actually install B…a user may download the web application or browser extension from the developer's server, but before installing(i.e. note: publication) any downloaded data, the browser application 112 may verify that the downloaded data matches the item for which the window 406 was shown (for example, verifying the downloaded data using a cryptographic signature)[e.g. note: before installing a patch of an image, the metadata is initially verified]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hatakeyama with the teaching of Kay because a user would have been motivated to use a browser application, taught by Kay, in order to evaluate potential security issues of an application before installing an image on the system taught by Hatakeyama(Kay, para. 0036)
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14, wherein the management platform includes a user interface through which a result of said verifying is displayed to the user(US 20130247030, Kay, para. 0062, The processor 602 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 600, including instructions stored in the memory 604 or on the storage device 606 to display graphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, such as display 616 coupled to high speed interface 608.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hatakeyama with the teaching of Kay because a user would have been motivated to use a browser application, taught by Kay, in order to evaluate potential security issues of an application before installing an image on the system taught by Hatakeyama(Kay, para. 0036)
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14, wherein the metadata portion of the published cloud image comprises a header, footer, leading portion or trailing portion of the published cloud image(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0086, In the compressed image file 212, a compression table indicating relation between the blocks of the files before the compression and after the compression is written to a metadata region 205. The size of the plain text image file 210 before the compression is described in the header part of the compression table).
2.) Claims 2, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150301823, Hatakeyama in view of US 20130247030, Kay and further in view of US 20230306543, Beaty
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein said verifying comprises:extracting a first digest from the signed digest by using a public key of the software publisher;creating a second digest of the published image file by excluding the non-executable portion of the published image file; andcomparing the first digest to the second digest However, Beaty teaches wherein said verifying comprises:extracting a first digest from the signed digest by using a public key of the software publisher(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E and para. 0037, In step 8, smart contract 601 can extract the parameters (VoucherID1 and NFTID1) from voucher 700 and use them to generate a hash (e.g., via a hash generator 202 corresponding to hash signature generator 201) and can also extract the hash signature from voucher 700 and decrypt it (e.g., using the corresponding public key).);creating a second digest of the published image file by excluding the non-executable portion of the published image file(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E, where a hash generator generates a 2nd hash); andcomparing the first digest to the second digest(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E, para. 0037, In step 9, smart contract 601 can compare the decrypted hash to the hash it generated from the parameters to determine if they match to thereby authenticate voucher 700.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Beaty because a user would have been motivated to use NFTs, taught by Beaty, in order to confirm that a user is authorized to perform a download operation taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Beaty, para. 0007)
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the system of claim 8. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein said verifying comprises: extracting a first digest from the signed digest by using a public key of the software publisher; creating a second digest of the published image file by excluding the non-executable portion of the published image file; and comparing the first digest to the second digest However, Beaty teaches wherein said verifying comprises: extracting a first digest from the signed digest by using a public key of the software publisher(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E and para. 0037, In step 8, smart contract 601 can extract the parameters (VoucherID1 and NFTID1) from voucher 700 and use them to generate a hash (e.g., via a hash generator 202 corresponding to hash signature generator 201) and can also extract the hash signature from voucher 700 and decrypt it (e.g., using the corresponding public key).); creating a second digest of the published image file by excluding the non-executable portion of the published image file(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E, where a hash generator generates a 2nd hash); and comparing the first digest to the second digest(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E, para. 0037, In step 9, smart contract 601 can compare the decrypted hash to the hash it generated from the parameters to determine if they match to thereby authenticate voucher 700.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Beaty because a user would have been motivated to use NFTs, taught by Beaty, in order to confirm that a user is authorized to perform a download operation taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Beaty, para. 0007)
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein said verifying comprises:extracting a first digest from the signed digest by using a public key of the software publisher;creating a second digest of the published image file by excluding the non-executable portion of the published image file; andcomparing the first digest to the second digest However, Beaty teaches wherein said verifying comprises:extracting a first digest from the signed digest by using a public key of the software publisher(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E and para. 0037, In step 8, smart contract 601 can extract the parameters (VoucherID1 and NFTID1) from voucher 700 and use them to generate a hash (e.g., via a hash generator 202 corresponding to hash signature generator 201) and can also extract the hash signature from voucher 700 and decrypt it (e.g., using the corresponding public key).);creating a second digest of the published image file by excluding the non-executable portion of the published image file(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E, where a hash generator generates a 2nd hash); andcomparing the first digest to the second digest(US 20230306543, Beaty, fig. 7E, para. 0037, In step 9, smart contract 601 can compare the decrypted hash to the hash it generated from the parameters to determine if they match to thereby authenticate voucher 700.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Beaty because a user would have been motivated to use NFTs, taught by Beaty, in order to confirm that a user is authorized to perform a download operation taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Beaty, para. 0007)
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Hatakeyama, Kay and Beaty teach The non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein obtaining of the signed digest, downloading of the published cloud image, and performing the verification are performed in the background by a management platform through which a user has the ability to set up and deploy the software product on one or more compute instances provided by a cloud provider from which the published cloud image was downloaded(US 20150301823, Hatakeyama, para. 0052, Incidentally, after the information processing device 10 has obtained all of the files belonging to the first group 72a and started the game software 70, the information processing device 10 downloads the files belonging to the following groups 72 in the background.).
3.) Claims 6, 7, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150301823, Hatakeyama in view of US 20130247030, Kay and further in view of US 20110307531, Gaponenko
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) files However, Gaponenko teaches wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) files (US 20110307531, Gaponenko, para. 0048, Computer system 202 creates image 218. Image 218 is a virtual hard disk image that is not specific to any virtual environment 220.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Gaponenko because a user would have been motivated to use a compatibility matrix, taught by Gaponenko, in order to facilitate transferring an image between disparate virtual environments in the system taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Gaponenko, para. 0008)
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Amazon Machine Image (AMI) files However, Gaponenko teaches (US 20110307531, Gaponenko, para. 0064, assume the hypervisor running the source image is Amazon Machine Image,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Gaponenko because a user would have been motivated to use a compatibility matrix, taught by Gaponenko, in order to facilitate transferring an image between disparate virtual environments in the system taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Gaponenko, para. 0008)
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the method of claim 8. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) files or Amazon Machine Image (AMI) files However, Gaponenko teaches wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Amazon Machine Image (AMI) files (US 20110307531, Gaponenko, para. 0048, Computer system 202 creates image 218. Image 218 is a virtual hard disk image that is not specific to any virtual environment 220.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Gaponenko because a user would have been motivated to use a compatibility matrix, taught by Gaponenko, in order to facilitate transferring an image between disparate virtual environments in the system taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Gaponenko, para. 0008)
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) files However, Gaponenko teaches wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Amazon Machine Image (AMI) files (US 20110307531, Gaponenko, para. 0048, Computer system 202 creates image 218. Image 218 is a virtual hard disk image that is not specific to any virtual environment 220.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Gaponenko because a user would have been motivated to use a compatibility matrix, taught by Gaponenko, in order to facilitate transferring an image between disparate virtual environments in the system taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Gaponenko, para. 0008)
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14. The combination of Hatakeyama and Kay do not teach wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Amazon Machine Image (AMI) files However, Gaponenko teaches wherein the original cloud image and the published cloud image comprise Amazon Machine Image (AMI) files (US 20110307531, Gaponenko, para. 0064, assume the hypervisor running the source image is Amazon Machine Image,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay with the teaching of Gaponenko because a user would have been motivated to use a compatibility matrix, taught by Gaponenko, in order to facilitate transferring an image between disparate virtual environments in the system taught by the combination of Hatakeyama and Kay(Gaponenko, para. 0008)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7469. The examiner can normally be reached on 571 270 7469 from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Taghi Arani, can be reached on 571 272 3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/GREGORY A LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights