CTFR 18/090,701 CTFR 87233 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is a Final Office Action responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 5/7/2026. Claims 1-25 are pending. Response to Amendment Applicant has amended the claims to include limitations in the independent claims that alter the scope of the invention necessitating a new search and renewed consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernat et al. (US 2020/0285523) . With respect to claim 1, Bernat discloses: A method performed at a host computing system for operating a virtual pool of resources in an edge computing network (Abstract, Fig. 1) , the method comprising: identifying availability of a resource at the host computing system (Fig. 3, 304) ; transmitting, from a networked processing unit of the host computing system ([0035], lines 17-25: “client computing device 110” corresponds to “networked processing unit”; Fig. 1 “110” is connected via a network to “170”) to a network infrastructure device, a notification that the resource at the host computing system is available for use in a virtual resource pool in the edge computing network (Fig. 3, 306-326, where the orchestrator logic unit corresponds to “network infrastructure device”) ; receiving a request for the resource in the virtual resource pool, the request provided on behalf of a client computing system, wherein the request is coordinated via the network infrastructure device, and wherein the request includes at least one quality of service (QoS) requirement ([0067]-[0069] describes QoS requirements, paragraphs [0023], [0089], and [0102] describes resources that are virtualized) ; and servicing the request for the resource, based on the at least one QoS requirement ([0070]) . Bernat does not specifically disclose a request from a second networked processing unit of a client computing system. However, in a different embodiment, Bernat discloses a second networked processing unit that utilizes the resources that the first networked processing unit communicated as available ([0040], lines 9-15) and also a request to augment resources available on a present compute device (Fig. 5, 356). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to realize that Bernat’s orchestrator logic unit matches computing devices that requests resources with resources that have been communicated as available and belongs to other computing devices to ensure workload execution and system utilization is optimized. With respect to claim 2, Bernat discloses: wherein the resource is a physical resource located at the host computing system, wherein the physical resource is accessible via an interconnect, and wherein servicing the request includes providing access to the physical resource (Fig. 7 or Fig. 9, where nodes correspond to “physical resource”) . With respect to claim 4, Bernat discloses: wherein the resource is a virtual resource accessible via at least one local virtual function or at least one remote virtual function, and wherein servicing the request includes providing access to the virtual function ([0023]) . With respect to claim 5, Bernat discloses: wherein the virtual resource corresponds to a central processing unit (CPU) or hardware compute device (Fig. 3, 308, [0035], line 23-23: “processor 212”) . With respect to claim 6, Bernat discloses: wherein the request is coordinated via the network infrastructure device based on a capability for the virtual resource pool to meet the QoS requirement (Fig. 3, [0035], where orchestrator logic unit corresponds to “network infrastructure device”) . With respect to claim 7, Bernat discloses: wherein the request is coordinated via the network infrastructure device based on at least one of : attestation of the resource, attestation of the request , or attestation of the client computing system ([0095]) . With respect to claim 8, Bernat discloses: verifying an attestation of the request for the resource or attestation of the client computing system, using a trusted attestation server (id.) . With respect to claim 9, Bernat discloses: wherein the request is coordinated via the network infrastructure device and provided to the host computing system based on network telemetry evaluated by the network infrastructure device ([0052]) . With respect to claim 10, Bernat discloses: wherein the network infrastructure device is a switch, gateway, or access point, that is located in a network connecting the host computing system and the client computing system (Fig. 1, “170”) . With respect to claim 11, Bernat discloses: wherein the networked processing unit or the second network processing unit utilize peer discovery logic to associate the respective units ([0060], [0061], Fig. 3) . With respect to claims 12, 13, 15-22, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 2, 4-11, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale. With respect to claims 23-24, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 2, and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernat et al. (US 2020/0285523) in view of Natu (US 2020/0065290) . With respect to claim 3, Bernat does not specifically disclose: wherein the interconnect is a Compute Express Link (CXL) interconnect, and wherein the physical resource is a CXL device that is accessible via a CXL root complex. However, Natu discloses: wherein the interconnect is a Compute Express Link (CXL) interconnect, and wherein the physical resource is a CXL device that is accessible via a CXL root complex ([0014]) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an industry high speed interconnect standard for Bernat’s computer bus as it provides high bandwidth, low latency and cache coherent connections between host processors and various devices like accelerators and memory devices. Its main advantage is addressing memory bottlenecks in data centers by enabling resource sharing and dynamic allocation. With respect to claim 14, it recites similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale . Response to Arguments Applicant alleges Bernat’s “orchestrator logic unit” cannot be mapped to Applicant’s “network infrastructure device” because the “orchestrator logic unit” does not “interface with NPUs [networked processing units]”. The claims do not disclose how such an “interface” takes place. Claim 1 merely discloses a notification of excess resources to the network infrastructure device and a request for resources to the infrastructure device. This communication scheme seems to be the only “interfacing” occurring. Further, claim 1 does not even use the element “interface” in the claim language. It is not incumbent on the examiner to import limitations from the specification into the claim language. Applicant further alleges that Bernat does not contain the term processing unit at all. The “compute device” in Bernat is being mapped to the NPU. Fig. 2 in Bernat clearly illustrates that the “compute device” contains a processor. Without further narrowing what a NPU includes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the “compute device” can be interpreted to be a processing unit as it contains everything a computer usually has (processor, memory, etc.). Further, fig. 1 illustrates that the “compute devices” are connected to the “orchestrator logic unit” via a network. It is therefore reasonable to interpret the compute device to be a networked device that includes a processor, i.e., a networked processing unit. The rejection, respectfully, is maintained, albeit, with different citations necessitated by the new limitations. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith et al. (US 11924060): A MEC orchestrator is to receive a request for service that includes a workload from a user agent; and facilitate formation of a SLA for servicing the workload. To facilitate the formation of the SLA includes to obtain, via a decentralized contracting system, bids from a plurality of service providers to respectively service a plurality of functions or tasks of the workload. The MEC orchestrator is also to translate the workload into the plurality of functions or tasks, and schedule servicing of the functions of tasks with the one or more service providers, including one or more edge computing devices, in accordance with the SLA . THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm. 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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. /WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 3 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 5 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 6 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 7 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 8 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/090,701 Page 9 Art Unit: 2195
Prosecution Insights