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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 05 June 2026. Claims 1-25 are still pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s response, filed 05 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-25 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lauer-Seed 20150033312A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer et al. hereinafter Lauer Pub Number 20240283725 and Seed et al. hereinafter Seed Pub Number 20150033312A1.
As per claim 1, Lauer teaches a system to improve device connectivity (see abstract describing systems and methods that provide connectivity to client electronic devices in a wireless communication network), the system comprising: an electronic device to broadcast a message including a uniform resource indicator (URI), the URI corresponding to the electronic device (see par 0009, an HTTP request from an electronic device comprising a URI); and an endpoint device to: after obtaining the message, launch a user interface to display a request for authorization to connect to the electronic device (see par 0044, the client device 210 may communicate to the controller 220 a request to connect to the wireless network. Association with the wireless network may operate via one or more wireless local area network (WLAN) communication protocols, such as one or more IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) protocols (e.g., 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11ac, etc.). In some embodiments, connecting the wireless network may require entry of a password and/or other authorization from the client device 210 (e.g., a WPA2-secured network).
Lauer teaches access websites services (see fig 2 element 260). Lauer also discusses “obtained HTTP request to proceed to a destination indicated by the URI (see par 0011). However, Lauer does not discuss after obtaining the authorization, retrieve an instance of a container based on the URI; and execute a service with the container based on data obtained from the electronic device.
Seed discloses data analytics, data aggregation (see Summary of the invention); (“At step 356, SMG CSF on CSE 304 prepares a notification to session endpoint (AE 302) that container was updated. At step 357, SMG CSF on CSE 304 sends notification to AE 302 that container1 resource was updated as part of the session. At step 358, AE 302 responds with a positive response that it received the notification. At step 359, AE 302 sends a session-based RETRIEVE request to CSE 304 to retrieve updated container resource. At step 360, CSE 304 detects that the request of step 359 is session based and passes it to SMG CSF to process. At step 361, Based on session ID, SMG CSF on CSE 304 verifies URI targets a valid session endpoint (AE 302's container1 resource)) see par 0104. It must be noted that a container is a logical organizer for files or data while a URI for a container usually includes storage account, the container name, and sometimes authentication tokens or version information.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skill artisan before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to combine Seed’s container to Lauer’s system to facilitate efficiency while providing strong isolation capabilities.
As per claim 2, Lauer-Seed does not discuss the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device broadcasts the message upon bootup of the electronic device (it’s implicit and is part of their system schema; a message can be programmed to be sent any time).
As per claim 3, Lauer-Seed teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, and the system further including a second electronic device to: capture an image of a code associated with the first electronic device; determine that the code is representative of the URI; trigger an application based on the URI to discover the endpoint device; and transmit the URI to the endpoint device (see Seed, Table 4 and Table 17; all these features are part of the container service and function).
As per claim 4, Lauer-Seed teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device broadcasts the message after obtaining an input signal representative of a manual pairing operation (this step is implicit in both Lauer-Seed).
As per claim 5, Lauer-Seed teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the endpoint device: captures an image of a code associated with the electronic device; determines that the code is representative of the URI; and generates the user interface based on the URI (see Seed, Table 4 and Table 17; all these features are part of the container service and function).
As per claim 8, it is an apparatus of the system claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. furthermore, Lauer teaches at least one memory; machine readable instructions; and processor circuitry (see Lauer par 0036, processor, memory, and instructions).
As per claim 9, Lauer teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: launches a user interface to display a notification representative of a request for authorization to connect to the electronic device; and obtains an authorization via the user interface to connect to the electronic device (see Lauer par 0039, device authorization).
As per claim 10, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: obtains an image of a code associated with the electronic device; and identifies the URI based on the code (see Lauer fig 42, element 4232, coded instructions).
As per claim 11, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the code is a quick response code (see Lauer fig 42, element 4232, the response can be varied).
As per claim 12, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: obtains data from a near-field communication device associated with the electronic device (see Seed par 0086 which implicitly may include near-field as well); and identifies the URI based on the data (see Lauer par 0011).
As per claim 13, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry: obtains data from a radiofrequency identification tag associated with the electronic device (implicit in Seed’s par 0086); and identifies the URI based on the data (see Lauer par 0011).
As per claim 14, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is a first endpoint device, and the processor circuitry: obtains a request to connect the electronic device to the first endpoint device and a second endpoint device; establishes a mesh network including the first endpoint device and the second endpoint device; and causes transmission of data from the electronic device to the second endpoint device via the mesh network (see Seed Table, 4, 8, and 17).
As per claim 15, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor circuitry instantiates the container to execute a machine-learning model on the workload (see Seed fig 5, discovery function).
As per claim 16, Lauer-Seed teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, and the processor circuitry: obtains first data from the first electronic device and second data from a second electronic device; selects at least one of a first portion of the first data or a second portion of the second data; and executes the workload based on the at least one of the first portion or the second portion (see Seed tables, 4, 8, and 17).
As per claim 17, it is a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of the system of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18-25, they have already been discussed in claims 9-16 above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6-7 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZ B JEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached at 571272390549. 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.
/FRANTZ B JEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights