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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 19-29 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are elected.
Claims 10-18 are canceled.
Claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed on 12/10/2025, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections. The reasons set forth below.
Drawings
The formal drawings received on 12/10/2025 have been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claims 1-9 and 19-20, are directed to providing service model based data services and utility functions and establishing network layer path selection connectivity between producer applications and consumer applications as a function of network conditions and network transport protocols, H04L45/302.
II. Claims 21-29, are directed to determining a capability rank assessment associated with each of a plurality of network paths connecting an edge-based routing device with a consumer application device, H04W40/02.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
The combination in claims 1-9 and 19-20 has utility such as in the route determination based on requested QoS.
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed in claims 21-29 determining a capability rank assessment associated with each of a plurality of network paths connecting an edge-based routing device with a consumer application device in the claimed subcombination are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination in claims 10-18 has separate utility such as in the communication route or path selection.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the proxy application programming interface is configured to be agnostic to the network transport protocols by instantiating a transport proxy from a proxy library for sending and receiving data.” The portion of the claim “… be agnostic to the network transport protocols by …” lacks written description support.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the client application programming interface is configured to satisfy a data request for a description of data by requesting the data to be captured and provided.” The written description merely discloses the function but does not disclose that the client application program interface performs the function.
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, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), and Mladin (US 20220014594).
Claim 1. Ramanujan teaches:
An edge based routing device configured for a multi-transport network, – in paragraphs [0098]-[0109], [0232]-[0260] (HART Routers come in three flavors: HART-Edge (HART-E): These HART Appliances are installed on each edge node in the network and will route data to and from an endpoint. A hybrid router, an autonomous IP based network integration solution that provides end-to-end sensor-to-shooter connectivity across a heterogeneous tactical network.)
the edge based routing device comprising: – in paragraphs [0098]-[0109], [0232]-[0260] (HART Routers come in three flavors: HART-Edge (HART-E): These HART Appliances are installed on each edge node in the network and will route data to and from an endpoint.)
memory configured to store program code for providing service model based utility functions; and – in paragraphs [0098]-[0114], [0232]-[0260] (HART Routers come in three flavors: HART-Edge (HART-E): These HART Appliances are installed on each edge node in the network and will route data to and from an endpoint. It lends itself to a modular implementation architecture where the HART mechanism and techniques are implemented as plug-in software modules that can either be (1) integrated within existing software routers (e.g., quagga, XORP); or (2) executed on add-on processor modules for commercial hardware routers (e.g., within an AXP card for a Cisco router); or (3) integrated within commercially-available programmable high-speed packet processing appliances (e.g., EZappliance). HART uses this alias-tag table along with HART policies to determine routes to use and configuration changes to make on the routers.)
the edge based routing device having a hardware processor configured for accessing the memory and executing the program code for providing service model based utility functions, – in paragraphs [0098]-[0114], [0232]-[0260] (HART Routers come in three flavors: HART-Edge (HART-E): These HART Appliances are installed on each edge node in the network and will route data to and from an endpoint. It lends itself to a modular implementation architecture where the HART mechanism and techniques are implemented as plug-in software modules that can either be (1) integrated within existing software routers (e.g., quagga, XORP); or (2) executed on add-on processor modules for commercial hardware routers (e.g., within an AXP card for a Cisco router); or (3) integrated within commercially-available programmable high-speed packet processing appliances (e.g., EZappliance). HART uses this alias-tag table along with HART policies to determine routes to use and configuration changes to make on the routers.)
a proxy application programming interface configured for establishing network layer path selection connectivity between producer applications and consumer applications as a function of network conditions and network transport protocols, – in paragraphs [0110]-[0114], [0476]-[0488], [0575]-[0589], [0757]-[0762] (HART is integrated with the radios and then successfully shows to monitor the status of the live radios (through the Mini-CDL API), making correct autonomous failover configuration updates to the routers. Tactical routing is based on dynamic route selection using link quality and using optical and other link types as failover links when primary links failed or degraded. The HART Policy Configuration GUI allows the user to setup and maintain the policies used by the HART routers. This tool allows the user to define the default link for traffic and the order of backup or failover links to use. Once the default is setup, the user can specify different traffic types based on matching DSCP (differentiated services code point) and/or protocol ID fields. For each traffic type a primary link can be selected and then the other links can be ordered as to which link(s) will be used to failover that traffic type. Some of these wireless terminals implement bridged IP subnets (e.g., mini-CDL, FSO) while others implement routed IP subnets using proprietary routing protocols (e.g., TTNT, QNT). Target IP Radios, Devices and technologies to integrate Primary integration technologies: route at the lower network and mac layers; Used for MIDS (Multi-functional Information Distribution System) data traffic as well as other TCP/IP network traffic. Flow redirection is based on source and destination addresses of IP packets.)
Ramanujan does not explicitly teach:
memory configured to store program code for providing service model based data services and utility functions; and the edge based routing device having a hardware processor configured for accessing the memory and executing the program code for providing service model based data services and utility functions, wherein by executing the program code the hardware processor is configured for generating at least: a client application programming interface configured for receiving producer application data and for outputting consumer application data according to the service model based data services and utility functions.
However, Thanneeru teaches:
memory configured to store program code for providing service model based data services and utility functions; and – in paragraphs [0027]-[0049] (Device 300 may perform these operations in response to processor 320 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 330 and/or mass storage 340. Network message stream pipeline 220 may include a centralized or regional transformer 225 to convert vendor-specific messages into a unified message format. The mapping files may map vendor-specific data formats to one or more vendor-agnostic models that support a unified message format for the traffic network of network environment 100. Compared to collection pods 210, network message stream pipeline 220 may provide more advanced filtering, additional augmentation (e.g., examining/extracting data from the message) and routing. Network message stream pipeline 220 may publish messages with the unified message format to messaging bus 230 for distribution to one or more group systems 240. As shown in FIG. 5, transformer 225 may include vendor agnostic models and class assignments 502 and mapping files 504.)
the edge based routing device having a hardware processor configured for accessing the memory and executing the program code for providing service model based data services and utility functions, – in paragraphs [0027]-[0049] (Device 300 may perform these operations in response to processor 320 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 330 and/or mass storage 340. Network message stream pipeline 220 may include a centralized or regional transformer 225 to convert vendor-specific messages into a unified message format. The mapping files may map vendor-specific data formats to one or more vendor-agnostic models that support a unified message format for the traffic network of network environment 100. Compared to collection pods 210, network message stream pipeline 220 may provide more advanced filtering, additional augmentation (e.g., examining/extracting data from the message) and routing. Network message stream pipeline 220 may publish messages with the unified message format to messaging bus 230 for distribution to one or more group systems 240. As shown in FIG. 5, transformer 225 may include vendor agnostic models and class assignments 502 and mapping files 504.)
wherein by executing the program code the hardware processor is configured for generating at least: a client application programming interface configured for receiving producer application data and for outputting consumer application data according to the service model based data services and utility functions; and – in paragraphs [0027]-[0049] (Device 300 may perform these operations in response to processor 320 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 330 and/or mass storage 340. Data reporting devices 205 may include a computing device or network device that generates fault data, performance data, or other types of network data to support network analytics and/or real-time network management. Network message stream pipeline 220 may include one or more network devices or computing devices that receives pre-processed vendor/technology message from collection pods 210. Network message stream pipeline 220 may include a centralized or regional transformer 225 to convert vendor-specific messages into a unified message format. Network message stream pipeline 220 may publish messages with the unified message format to messaging bus 230 for distribution to one or more group systems 240. Compared to collection pods 210, network message stream pipeline 220 may provide more advanced filtering, additional augmentation (e.g., examining/extracting data from the message) and routing.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan with Thanneeru to include memory configured to store program code for providing service model based data services and utility functions; and the edge based routing device having a hardware processor configured for accessing the memory and executing the program code for providing service model based data services and utility functions, wherein by executing the program code the hardware processor is configured for generating at least: a client application programming interface configured for receiving producer application data and for outputting consumer application data according to the service model based data services and utility functions, as taught by Thanneeru, in paragraph or on lines x-y in column z,] to [Motivation].
Combination of Ramanujan and Thanneeru does not explicitly teach:
wherein by executing the program code the hardware processor is configured for generating at least: a client application programming interface.
However, Kodaypak teaches:
wherein by executing the program code the hardware processor is configured for generating at least: a client application programming interface – in paragraphs [0018], [0027]-[0047], [0053], [0064], [0072] (A process running on a processor, computer-executable instruction(s), a program, and/or a computer. Storage media can contain computer-executable instructions for performing the methods of the specification. More than one API can be generated (e.g., simultaneous or substantially simultaneous), for example, depending on demand and/or health conditions of the SCEF 102. The multi-vendor SCEF 102 can communicate with a plurality of different vendors such as MME vendors, SGSN vendors, and the like, and can generate different APIs that are exposed to the application servers in a pool (e.g., AS 1-AS M (210.sub.1-210.sub.M)).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan and Thanneeru with Kodaypak to include wherein by executing the program code the hardware processor is configured for generating at least: a client application programming interface, as taught by Kodaypak, in paragraph [0001]-[0025], to develop innovative and intelligent networking solutions that can deliver optimal connectivity as well as end user service quality.
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, and Kodaypak does not explicitly teach:
wherein the proxy application programming interface is configured to be agnostic to the network transport protocols.
However, Seed teaches:
wherein the proxy application programming interface is configured to be agnostic to the network transport protocols. – in paragraphs [0120]-[0155] (OMB API 225 is independent and agnostic of the underlying OMB transport protocol (e.g. message passing, AMQP, XMPP, MQTT, Web Sockets, etc.).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, and Kodaypak with Seed to include wherein the proxy application programming interface is configured to be agnostic to the network transport protocols, as taught by Seed, in paragraphs [0002]-[0052], to facilitate connectivity and communication between services and offer infrastructure services that may be leveraged by services that connect with a messaging bus.
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, and Seed does not explicitly teach:
wherein the service model based data services include advertisement and discovery of available data.
However, Mladin teaches:
wherein the service model based data services include advertisement and discovery of available data; and – in paragraphs [0032]-[0284] (The framework described herein may provide topic-based data management, with the goal of making the data easier to discover, consume, and advertise. The data is made available to other participants in the systems, referred to herein as consumers. After discovering data of interest, the broker Pub/Sub functionality may allow consumers to subscribe to data of interest and be notified accordingly, therefore becoming subscribers. The broker may also advertise the data to other entities in the system by providing information about the data or characteristics of the data available for subscribing.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, and Seed with Mladin to include wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery, in combination with an edge based routing device of a consumer processor and edge based routing device of a producer application, as taught by Mladin, in paragraph [0032], to provide topic-based data management, with the goal of making the data easier to discover, consume, and advertise.
Claim 3. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Ramanujan teaches:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured for a dynamic, heterogeneous tactical network architecture. – in paragraphs [0098]-[0109], [0232]-[0260] (A hybrid router, an autonomous IP based network integration solution that provides end-to-end sensor-to-shooter connectivity across a heterogeneous tactical network is disclosed. HART addresses two major technical challenges that remain unaddressed by the state of the art to achieve the desired capability of an autonomous integration router for tactical edge networks: 1. Autonomous Mission Persistent Network Connectivity, i.e., the development of a scalable and automatic approach for establishing and maintaining end-to-end connectivity between user nodes in a dynamically changing tactical network topology with intermittent connectivity to the global information grid ("GIG").)
Claim 8. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Mladin teaches:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery, in combination with an edge based routing device of a consumer processor and edge based routing device of a producer application. – in paragraph [0034] (A service layer service that publishes data in ways that adapt dynamically to discovery/query or subscription requests, to newly announced data, etc. The service may organize data in topics of interest and may allow data producers and consumers to be loosely coupled and operating independently.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Lee (US 20060238331).
Claim 2. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Ramanujan teaches:
determine paths of a network architecture over which the data requests will be transported. – in paragraphs [0110]-[0114], [0476]-[0488], [0575]-[0589], [0757]-[0762] (HART is integrated with the radios and then successfully shows to monitor the status of the live radios (through the Mini-CDL API), making correct autonomous failover configuration updates to the routers. Tactical routing is based on dynamic route selection using link quality and using optical and other link types as failover links when primary links failed or degraded. The HART Policy Configuration GUI allows the user to setup and maintain the policies used by the HART routers. This tool allows the user to define the default link for traffic and the order of backup or failover links to use. Once the default is setup, the user can specify different traffic types based on matching DSCP (differentiated services code point) and/or protocol ID fields. For each traffic type a primary link can be selected and then the other links can be ordered as to which link(s) will be used to failover that traffic type.)
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
configured as a software instance, wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to provide operations as a service model which will produce data requests as a function of consumer processor based services.
However, Lee teaches:
configured as a software instance, wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to provide operations as a service model which will produce data requests as a function of consumer processor based services, and – in paragraphs [0024]-[0037] (The terminal can transmit the sensed and measured vital signs to the military command post server according to an information transmission request from the military command post server.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Lee to include configured as a software instance, wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to provide operations as a service model which will produce data requests as a function of consumer processor based services, as taught by Lee, in paragraph [0003]-[0023], to fulfill a need for the development of a military wireless communication terminal, which is capable of receiving location information of both the enemy and allied forces located around a soldier carrying the military wireless communication terminal.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), Stanciu (US 20190356550), and Zha (US 20120214504).
Claim 4. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery based on proactive advertisement messages.
However, Stanciu teaches:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery based on proactive advertisement messages, and – in paragraphs [0051], [0078] (The data store 271 may comprise any type of data store that is configured to manage dynamic, frequently changing data such as sensor data, and that provides quick and efficient performance. Beyond the initial discovery/mapping process, embodiments also handle the case where devices announce themselves after installation (e.g., when a bad device is replaced, the device sometimes has the capability to announce “I_AM” proactively, rather than reactive to a “Who_Is” requests). After announcing, embodiments dynamically handle that announcement and map its physical location.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Stanciu to include wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery based on proactive advertisement messages, as taught by Stanciu, in paragraph [0002], to allow a computing system to access services at other computing systems and to quickly and efficiently receive data from other computing systems.
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, Mladin, and Stanciu does not explicitly teach:
to disseminate data based on data requirements of consumer processor based services, the data being shaped with a desired data density.
However, Zha teaches:
to disseminate data based on data requirements of consumer processor based services, the data being shaped with a desired data density. – in paragraphs [0020]-[0030] (Transform the data to the desired sampling rate.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, Mladin, and Stanciu with Zha to include to disseminate data based on data requirements of consumer processor based services, the data being shaped with a desired data density, as taught by Zha, in paragraphs [0001]-[0009], to transform data into a user-friendly format and to capture network data from diverse locations in real time and deliver to a server for processing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Stanciu (US 20190356550).
Claim 5. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the proxy application programming interface of the hardware processor is configured to provide transport mechanism agnostic messaging, which will support transport proactive advertisement messages.
However, Stanciu teaches:
wherein: the proxy application programming interface of the hardware processor is configured to provide transport mechanism agnostic messaging, which will support transport proactive advertisement messages. – in paragraphs [0051], [0078] (The data store 271 may comprise any type of data store that is configured to manage dynamic, frequently changing data such as sensor data, and that provides quick and efficient performance. Beyond the initial discovery/mapping process, embodiments also handle the case where devices announce themselves after installation (e.g., when a bad device is replaced, the device sometimes has the capability to announce “I_AM” proactively, rather than reactive to a “Who_Is” requests). After announcing, embodiments dynamically handle that announcement and map its physical location.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Stanciu to include wherein: the proxy application programming interface of the hardware processor is configured to provide transport mechanism agnostic messaging, which will support transport proactive advertisement messages, as taught by Stanciu, in paragraph [0002], to allow a computing system to access services at other computing systems and to quickly and efficiently receive data from other computing systems.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Menon (US 20020152318).
Claim 6. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to access data of producer processors using data requests and/or subscriptions.
However, Menon teaches:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to access data of producer processors using data requests and/or subscriptions. – in paragraph [0080] (Once a user request is made to an edge server, the edge server pulls the requested content from the origin server and initiates playback to the requesting user once a sufficient quantity of the requested content has been received.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Menon to include wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to access data of producer processors using data requests and/or subscriptions, as taught by Menon, in paragraph [0002], to efficient techniques, using metadata associated with content, for making copies of content available at various locations inside multiple computer networks in order to provide better quality of service for delivering streaming media objects.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Cordray (US 20100094981).
Claim 7. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery and to access transport and network status information when an alert is observed and/or a sensor reports an alert with respect to request parameters.
However, Cordray teaches:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery and – in paragraphs [0094], [0095] (These novel technologies, described herein, are especially useful in managing networks having dynamic configurations, due to their capability to dynamically deploy management and data collection applications that automatically discover and identify network devices and systems, and which collect information from these network devices and systems.)
to access transport and network status information when an alert is observed and/or a sensor reports an alert with respect to request parameters. – in paragraphs [0036], [0094], [0095] (Architecture of interrelated network and device management applications that share information about the status of networks and the devices running thereon. Configuration typically requires that the staff manually collect information about network management applications (and management information base ("MIB") configurations) used to manage the devices that are part of the network from individual device manufacturers, manually install and configure the software, and then manually set the thresholds for sending alerts.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Cordray to include wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to perform dynamic data discovery and to access transport and network status information when an alert is observed and/or a sensor reports an alert with respect to request parameters, as taught by Cordray, in paragraph [0003], to provide technique for automatically configuring and enabling network management and monitoring software and systems for managing and monitoring the operation of networks composed of various and disparate electronic devices.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Prautzsch (US 20070060045).
Claim 9. The edge based routing device according to claim 1 – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to assemble situational awareness information received from producer applications for a specified area in a tactical network environment.
However, Prautzsch teaches:
wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to assemble situational awareness information received from producer applications for a specified area in a tactical network environment. – in paragraphs [0041]-[0066] (A tactical network 74 including digital devices located on moving tanks is included as well as a tactical network 76 including digital devices carried on the backs of soldiers. A situational awareness system according to the present invention includes a first local network having a plurality of digital communication devices, each device capable of gathering information pertinent to an area in proximity of the device and providing information to a control station capable of collaborating the information and provide such information to the devices on the local network.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Prautzsch to include wherein: the hardware processor of the edge based routing device is configured to assemble situational awareness information received from producer applications for a specified area in a tactical network environment, as taught by Prautzsch, in paragraph [0005], to provide an integrated system to overcome the problems and limitations inherent in a system made up of many ad hoc elements.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Pateromichelakis (US 20240193021).
Claim 19. The edge based routing device of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Seed teaches:
wherein the proxy application programming interface is configured to be agnostic to the network transport protocols by instantiating a transport proxy from a proxy library for sending and receiving data. – in paragraphs [0120]-[0155] (OMB API 225 is independent and agnostic of the underlying OMB transport protocol (e.g. message passing, AMQP, XMPP, MQTT, Web Sockets, etc.).)
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
instantiating a transport proxy from a proxy.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches:
instantiating a transport proxy from a proxy. – in paragraphs [0030]-[0282] (At step 5, the middleware/enabler server 202 creates and publishes the platform independent APIs 210 to be exposed to the vertical/end applications 204a-b. This may also include programming tools, libraries, and/or the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Pateromichelakis to include instantiating a transport proxy from a proxy, as taught by Pateromichelakis, in paragraphs [0001]-[0067], to configure platform independent application programming interfaces.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujan (US 20150257081) in view of Thanneeru (US 20210058323), and further in view of Kodaypak (US 20170347283), Seed (US 20160248871), Mladin (US 20220014594), and Boykin (US 20170323540).
Claim 20. The edge based routing device of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin does not explicitly teach:
wherein the service model based data services include descriptions of data that require an action to determine if the data exists, wherein the client application programming interface is configured to satisfy a data request for a description of data by requesting the data to be captured and provided.
However, Boykin teaches:
wherein the service model based data services include descriptions of data that require an action to determine if the data exists, wherein the client application programming interface is configured to satisfy a data request for a description of data by requesting the data to be captured and provided. – in paragraphs [0037]-[0067] (The vehicle 10 computer 12 microprocessor may issue a communication to the ICV units 28 in police vehicles and BWCs 29 within a set range, to not only activate the respective camera devices, but also including selected image data information to activate the remote devices to perform a local analysis. For example, if an alert is received by the vehicle 10 computer 12 describing a crime involving suspects in multiple vehicles and the computer detects one of the vehicles, the microprocessor sends a communication (in real-time) to all other units/officers within the set range, including the captured image data or components of the captured image data (e.g. metadata alone; each of video data, audio data, and metadata is considered a component of the captured image data). The ICVs 28 and BWCs 29 receiving the information can then focus on scanning to detect for the other vehicles described in the alert. Similarly, image data captured by the ICVs 28 and BWCs 29 can be relayed back to the vehicle 10 computer 12 via the communication network 18 for hubbed real-time processing.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramanujan, Thanneeru, Kodaypak, Seed, and Mladin with Boykin to include wherein the service model based data services include descriptions of data that require an action to determine if the data exists, wherein the client application programming interface is configured to satisfy a data request for a description of data by requesting the data to be captured and provided, as taught by Boykin, in paragraphs [0003]-[0012], to capture real-world image data, making determinations in real time pertaining to the captured data, and triggering actions based upon such determinations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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.
/MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449