Ex Parte Garman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 28, 2019

13625507 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/625,507 09/24/2012 Matthew S. Garman 35690 7590 04/01/2019 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 5924-41800 1071 EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patent_docketing@intprop.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte MATTHEWS. GARMAN, JAMES R. HAMILTON, WILLIAM T. SHELTON, MICHAEL P. CZAMARA, TERRANCE DOUGLAS HANOLD, ABHINA V AGRAWAL, JOHN W. EICHELBERG, and RAJESH VISWANATHAN Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to providing resources to customers including racks, sub-rack level secure containment units in the racks, and a provisioning control system. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 According to Appellant, Amazon Technologies, Inc. is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 1. A system, comprising: a plurality of system computing devices configured to implement a plurality of resources of a provider network; a plurality of racks; a plurality of sub-rack level secure containment units in the plurality of racks, wherein the plurality of sub-rack level secure containment units each enclose a group of one or more system computing devices of the plurality of system computing devices, wherein respective groups of system computing devices enclosed in respective ones of the sub-rack level secure containment units are physically isolated from other system computing devices of the plurality of system computing devices, wherein at least one particular rack of the plurality of racks holds two or more of the sub-rack level secure containment units; and a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the provider network with restricted physical access, wherein the request specifies conditions for physical access to the restricted physical access resources; wherein in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of the subrack level secure containment units to the customer; and monitor, and create a record of, events of physical access to the respective groups of system computing devices in the customer's set of subrack level secure containment units in accordance with the conditions for physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the request from the customer, wherein, for at least one of the racks, the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on groups of system computing devices in different sub-rack level secure containment units in the rack to different customers. 2 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 19-23, and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gujarathi (US 2008/0091701 Al; published Apr. 17, 2008), Cedillo (US 6,364,439 Bl; issued Apr. 2, 2002), and Angelo (US 7,167,987 B2; issued Jan. 23, 2007). Final Act. 11-53. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14--18, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, Angelo, and Nishimura (US 2012/0095926 Al; Apr. 19, 2012). Final Act. 53-70. Claims 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, Angelo, and Official Notice. Final Act. 70-73. ANALYSIS I. The Combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo Teaches a Provisioning System with a Restricted Physical Access Option Claim 1 recites: a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the provider network with restricted physical access ... in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level secure containment units to the customer. 2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is withdrawn. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 The Examiner finds Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks and subordinate rack elements 15 for customers, and enforcing policies 14 that control accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation of a customer's policies, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers ... the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level [] containment units to the customer." Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi ,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34). The Examiner finds Cedillo teaches leasing storage units or compartments such that each individual client has a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism and each rack has units removably attached to the rack, which the Examiner maps to the limitation: a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace configured to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the provider network with restricted physical access, ... in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level secure containment units to the customer. Final Act. 16-17 ( citing Cedillo 1 :29-2 :26, 2: 61-3: 11 ). Appellants argue Gujarathi teaches a directory system, but fails to teach receiving provisioning requests with restricted physical access and provisioning resources in accordance with the requests. App. Br. 30-32; Reply Br. 2---6. Appellants argue Cedillo teaches leasing cabinet space and 4 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 providing each client a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism, but fails to teach a provisioning system that provisions resources of a provider network implemented on system computing devices of the provider network included in secure containment units. We disagree with Appellants. Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks and subordinate rack elements 15 (i.e., sub-rack level containment units) for customers, and enforcing policies 14 (i.e., provisioning control system that provisions resources) that control accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation of a customer's policies, which teaches the limitation "a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers ... the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level [] containment units to the customer" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 8, 22, and 27). Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi ,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34). Cedillo teaches leasing storage units (i.e., a lease indicates receipt from the customer a request for resources of the provider network) such that each individual client has a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism (i.e., sub-rack level secure containment units) and each rack has units removably attached to the rack, which teaches the limitation a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace configured to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the provider network with restricted physical access, ... in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured to provision resources implemented on 5 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level secure containment units to the customer; recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 8, 22, and 27). Final Act. 16-17 ( citing Cedillo 1 :29-2 :26, 2: 61-3: 11 ). Appellants separately argue independent claims 8, 22, and 27 with particularity, but these arguments assert the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn for at the same reasons as argued regarding independent claim 1. App. Br. 39--41, 43--45. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's finding that the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaches the limitation discussed in this section. 2. The Combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo Teaches a Provisioning System that Allows Customers to Specify Conditions for Physical Access Claim 1 recites: a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the provider network ... wherein the request specifies conditions for physical access to the restricted physical access resources; wherein in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured . . . monitor, and create a record of, events of physical access to the respective groups of system computing devices in the customer's set of sub-rack level secure containment units in accordance with the conditions for physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the request from the customer. The Examiner finds Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks and subordinate rack elements 15 for customers, and enforcing policies 14 that control accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation 6 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 of a customer's policies, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers." Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi ,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34). The Examiner finds Cedillo teaches leasing storage units or compartments such that each individual client has a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism and each rack has units removably attached to the rack, which the Examiner maps to the limitation: a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the provider network ... in the customer's set of sub-rack level secure containment units. Final Act. 16-17 (citing Cedillo 1:29-2:26, 2:61-3:11). The Examiner finds Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation: a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace configured to,for each customer of two or more customers: receive,from the customer, a request/or resources of the provider network ... wherein the request specifies conditions for physical access to the restricted physical access resources; wherein in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured . .. monitor, and create a record of, events of physical access to the respective groups of system computing devices in the customer's set of[] secure containment units in accordance with the conditions for 7 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the request from the customer. Final Act. 16-21 (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5:16-30). Appellants argue Gujarathi fails to teach the above limitation because Gujarathi does not teach a customer can specify conditions for physical access in a request for resources of a provider network that are to be provisioned to the customer. App. Br. 35; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants argue Cedillo fails to teach the above limitation because Cedillo fails to teach a provisioning control system. App. Br. 35. Appellants argue Angelo fails to teach the above limitation because Angelo does not teach a provisioning control system and a customer specifying a request for resources of a provider network conditions for physical access. Id. at 35-36; Reply Br. 7- 8. We disagree with Appellants. Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks and subordinate rack elements 15 for customers, and enforcing policies 14 that control accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation of a customer's policies, which teaches the limitation "a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or more customers" recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 8, 22, and 27). Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi ,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34). Cedillo teaches leasing storage units or compartments such that each individual client has a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism and each rack has units removably attached to the rack, which teaches the limitation: a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace configured to,for each customer of two or more customers: 8 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 receive,from the customer, a request/or resources of the provider network ... in the customer's set of sub-rack level secure containment units; recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 8, 22, and 27). Final Act. 16-18 (citing Cedillo 1:29- 2:26, 2:61-3:11). Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template (i.e., user request specifying a condition for physical access to restricted physical access resources) and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor (i.e., monitor, and create a record of events of physical access), which teaches the limitation: a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace configured to,for each customer of two or more customers: receive,from the customer, a request/or resources of the provider network ... wherein the request specifies conditions for physical access to the restricted physical access resources; wherein in response to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system is configured . .. monitor, and create a record of, events of physical access to the respective group of system computing devices in the customer's set of [] secure containment units in accordance with the conditions for physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the request from the customer. Final Act. 16-21 (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5:16-30). Appellants separately argue independent claims 8, 22, and 27 with particularity, but these arguments assert the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn for at the same reasons as argued regarding independent claim 1. App. Br. 39--41, 43--45. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's finding 9 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 that the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaches the limitation discussed in this section. 3. The Final Office Action Establishes a Prima Facie Rejection The Examiner makes numerous findings with respect to the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaching the limitations in dispute. See supraÂ§Â§ 1-2; Final Act. 11-21. Appellants argue the Office fails to cite any references that teach a customer being able to request resources with restricted physical access or a customer being able to specify conditions for physical access to the restricted physical access resources. App. Br. 36-37. We disagree with Appellants. For at least the reasons described above with respect to the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo, we agree with the Examiner that the combination teaches the limitations in dispute. See supra Â§Â§ 1-2. Appellants separately argue independent claims 8, 22, and 27 with particularity, but these arguments assert the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued regarding independent claim 1. App. Br. 39--41, 43--45. Also, Appellants do not argue separately dependent claims 4--7, 9-13, 15-21, 23-26, and 28-30 with particularity, but assert the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued regarding independent claims 1, 8, 22, and 27. App. Br. 28--45. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 8, 22, and 27; and (2) dependent claims 4--7, 9-13, 15-21, 23-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 10 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 4. Claim 2 The Examiner finds the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaches the limitations recited in claim 2. Final Act. 21-25. In particular, the Examiner finds Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein each of the locks on the two or more [] secure containment units is coupled to the provisioning control system." Id. (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51-67, 5:16-30). Appellants argue Angelo fails to teach any interaction with a provisioning control system. App. Br. 37-38; Reply Br. 8-9. We disagree with Appellants. At the outset, although Appellants copy and paste the entire language from claim 2, we note Appellants repeat a lot of the arguments regarding claim 1 and the only new argument pertaining to claim 2 is that Angelo fails to teach any interaction with a provisioning control system. Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein each of the locks on the two or more [] secure containment units is coupled to the provisioning control system." Final Act. 21-25 ( citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51-67, 5:16-30). 11 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 5. Claim 3 The Examiner finds Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein the conditions for physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the request are defined by the customer" recited in claim 3. Final Act. 19-21, 25-26 (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5: 16-30). Appellants argue Gujurathi teaches administrators, rather than customers, manage a user's access to the shares. App. Br. 39; Reply Br. 10. We disagree with Appellants. At the outset, Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's finding pertaining to Angelo. Moreover, Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template (i.e., defined by the customer) and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein the conditions for physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the request are defined by the customer." Final Act. 19-21, 25-26 ( citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5:16-30). 12 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 6. Claim 14 The Examiner finds Nishimura teaches managing racks, creating an audit trail when a user is physically accessing a rack, creating a work order, and requiring an approval to execute a work order, which the Examiner maps to the limitations "a request for approval by the customer" and "an approval of the customer in response to the request" recited in claim 14. Final Act. 63---65 ( citing Nishimura ,r,r 100,217, 264). Appellants argue Nishimura fails to teach sending requests for approval to a customer to whom resources are provisioned or receiving an approval from such a customer. App. Br. 42--43; Reply Br. 10. Nishimura teaches managing racks, creating an audit trails when a user is physically accessing a rack, creating a work order, and requiring an approval to execute a work order, which the Examiner maps to the limitations "a request for approval by the customer" and "an approval of the customer in response to the request" recited in claim 14. Final Act. 63---65 (citing Nishimura ,r,r 100,217,264). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 13 Appeal2017-011024 Application 13/625,507 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 14