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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 11 recite features not taught or suggested by the cited combination of references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown by Tchigevsky in paragraph 0047, the user device may include any suitable processor-driven user device (see also Egner: Col. 6 Line 21 – Col. 7 Line 16)
As such, the 103 rejection will be maintained.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchigevsky et al. (US 20170289900) in view of Efstathopoulos (US 9606817) and Egner et al. (US 10194320).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tchigevsky teaches: A network system for communication, the network system comprising, data processing hardware and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware causes (at least one processor and memory par. 0065) / A method for communication (method disclosed par. 0023), the method comprising: transmitting a code and information to a first device (transmission of information/code associated with a device par. 0027) via a first network (of multiple networks par. 0048); wherein when executed, the code causes the first device to communicate with a second device via a second network (IoT devices communicating/transmitting information over a wired or wireless connection associated with one or more networks par. 0027 and Fig. 1), wherein the first network is based on a first network protocol (of one or more network protocols par. 0027, 0048) and the second network is based on a second network protocol different from the first network protocol (of one or more different network protocols par. 0027, 0048).
Tchigevsky does not explicitly teach code configured to execute on a virtual environment as well as the transaction of cryptocurrency.
However, Efstathopoulos teaches: the code configured to execute on a virtual environment associated with the first device (virtual computing environment associated with one of the plurality of IoT devices claim 1; col. 10, line 36 – col. 11, line 3; col. 7, lines 11-21; col. 5, line 16-28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tchigevsky with the teachings of Efstathopoulos since the virtualization of Efstathopoulos enables multiple operating systems or virtual machines to run simultaneously on IoT devices without worrying about insufficient resource capabilities (Efstathopoulos: Col. 1 Line 23 -Col. 2 Line 4).
Efstathopoulos does not explicitly teach the transaction of cryptocurrency.
However, Egner teaches: the information including an amount of cryptocurrency to be provided in exchange for an execution of the code by the processor at the first device (cryptocurrency being used in exchange for requested services needed to access a wireless communication network Col. 17 Lines 39 – 50, by a local service broker/information handling system including processor Col. 6 Line 21 – Col. 7 Line 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tchigevsky and Efstathopoulos with the teachings of Egner since Egner further expands the method of communications between IoT devices and networks with the ability for these services to be monetarily beneficial by way of cryptocurrency, further providing records of transactions, access attempts, as well as storing user bitcoin account addresses (Egner: Col. 17 Line 39 – Col. 19 Line 50).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tchigevsky teaches: wherein the communication includes requesting data (request of data from through probe request par. 0037) from the second device via the second network (of IoT devices par. 0027), the data generated by an Internet of Things (IoT) device associated with the second device (through sending or receiving data of IoT devices par. 0021).
Further, Efstathopoulos teaches the communication between IoT devices is between different network protocols via virtual environment (virtual computing environment associated with one of the plurality of IoT devices claim 1; col. 10, line 36 – col. 11, line 3; col. 7, lines 11-21; col. 5, line 16-28).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Tchigevsky teaches: wherein the communication includes receiving data from the second device via the second network (receiving data from IoT devices par. 0021), the data generated by an Internet of Things (IoT) device associated with the second device (through sending or receiving data of IoT devices par. 0021).
Further, Efstathopoulos teaches the communication between IoT devices is between different network protocols via virtual environment (virtual computing environment associated with one of the plurality of IoT devices claim 1; col. 10, line 36 – col. 11, line 3; col. 7, lines 11-21; col. 5, line 16-28).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Efstathopoulos teaches: wherein the virtual environment is a virtualization environment (virtualization of IoT devices in virtual environment Col. 4 Lines 29 – 46).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Efstathopoulos teaches: wherein the code is an instruction capable of executing on a virtual machine (execution on IoT device with “shadow proxy” virtual machine Col. 4 Line 57 – Col. 5 Line 15).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Tchigevsky teaches: wherein the first network includes a cellular network (network connection including cellular network par. 0048).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Tchigevsky teaches: wherein the second network includes a short-range wireless network (wireless network communication ranges par. 0048).
Regarding claim 18, Tchigevsky teaches: wherein the first device and the second device are configured to form a distributed compute network to execute one or more distributed operations (IoT devices connected in a P2P or other distributed computer networks par. 0066).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchigevsky in view of Efstathopoulos and Egner and further in view of Ameling et al. (US 20200177484).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner teaches the claimed limitations as detailed above in claim 1, however it does not teach the limitations of claim 4 and 14.
However, Ameling teaches: wherein the virtual environment is a containerization environment (IoT service and devices in a cloud foundry container environment; Figure 1, par. 0014; 0017, 0032).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner with the teachings of Ameling since the container environment as described in Ameling provides handling capabilities of messages associated with end-to-end monitoring of IoT devices (Ameling: par. 0032).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchigevsky in view of Efstathopoulos and Egner and further in view of Pochuev et al. (US 20200145409).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner teaches the claimed limitations as detailed above in claim 1, however it does not teach the limitations of claim 6 and 16.
However, Pochuev teaches: wherein the code is a containerized program (IoT devices including attributes that include container programs/code par. 0035).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner with the teachings of Pochuev since the containerized programs included in the software RoT of Pochuev allows automatic generation of key materials for authentication as well as allowing for provisioning policy management (Pochuev: par. 0035 – 0037).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchigevsky in view of Efstathopoulos and Egner and further in view of Rongo et al. (US 20150121470).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner teaches the claimed limitations as detailed above in claim 1, however it does not teach the limitations of claim 10
However, Rongo teaches: wherein the communication includes providing hotspot service to the second device via the second network (peer-to-peer network communication via a mobile hotspot par. 0073 – 0076).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner with the teachings of Rongo since the hotspot connection of Rongo provides an extended list of devices and connection attributes that further increases the capabilities of an IoT network and the connections within (Rongo: par. 0075 – 0076).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchigevsky in view of Efstathopoulos and Egner and further in view of Gupta (US 20150006695).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner teaches the claimed limitations as detailed above in claim 1, however it does not teach the limitations of claim 20
However, Gupta teaches: wherein the second network includes a proximal social network (IoT devices as part of a proximal network par. 0023 – 0025).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Tchigevsky, Efstathopoulos, and Egner with the teachings of Gupta since the SuperAgent/Gateway for controlling communication within a IoT proximal network of Gupta provides enabling/disabling of communication as well as remoting notifications from one or more IoT devices to a user device (Gupta: 0023 – 0025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN SCOTT MOTTER whose telephone number is (703)756-1550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 571-272-4215. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198