DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 12/23/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 9 and 11-20 have been amended and no claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Paper Submitted
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 12/4/25 are considered by the Examiner.
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claims 1-20 filed on 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Maskara et al.” (US PGPUB 2024/0356887) (Hereinafter Maskara).
With respect to claim 1, Maskara teaches an apparatus (computer 810; Fig. 7, [0056]) comprising:
a network interface device (computer 810; Fig. 7, [0056]) comprising:
a host interface (user input interface 860 and/or output peripheral interface 895; Fig. 7, [0062]);
a direct memory access (DMA) circuitry (Fig. 7, [0056]); and
a network interface (network interface 870; Fig. 7, [0064]) and circuitry (Fig. 7, [0056]-[0064]) to:
receive a request to perform a service (receiving service-specific requests; Fig. 1, [0019], [0022]); and
select a servicing node based on network latency and proximity of the requested service to the network interface device, wherein the proximity of the requested service includes execution in the network interface device (identifying a service endpoint that is closest to requester in terms of network latency. Determining that the receiving service endpoint is the service endpoint that is closest to the requester; Fig. 1, [0022], [0029]).
With respect to claim 7, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the network interface device comprises one or more of: network interface controller (NIC), SmartNIC, router, forwarding element, infrastructure processing unit (IPU), or data processing unit (DPU) (components of computer 810 include a processing unit 820, a system memory 830, a system bus 821, system memory 830, network interface 870, modem 872, user input interface 860, etc.; Fig. 7, [0056]-[0064]).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of “Bedekar et al.” (WO2017/062014A1) (Hereinafter Bedekar) (Please refer to the previously Attached Foreign Document).
With respect to claim 2, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maskara does not teach wherein the circuitry is to associate a quality of service with the request, wherein the quality of service comprises a range of number of network device hops to the servicing node.
However, Bedekar teaches wherein the circuitry is to associate a quality of service with the request, wherein the quality of service comprises a range of number of network device hops to the servicing node (service requirements include QoS parameters such as a maximum number of hops; [0045], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a quality of service comprising a number of network device hops to Maskara because Maskara discloses receiving a service request ([0019]) and Bedekar suggests using a quality of service comprising a number of network device hops ([0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedekar in the Maskara system in order to improve service response time.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of “Guim Bernat et al.” (US PGPUB 2020/0389410) (Hereinafter Guim).
With respect to claim 3, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maskara does not teach wherein the circuitry is to: based on a quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by the network interface device.
However, Guim teaches wherein the circuitry is to: based on a quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by the network interface device (service resources are implemented in an edge gateway; Figs. 1 and 2A, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting a local service instance to Maskara because Maskara discloses identifying devices for a service request ([0022]) and Guim suggests selecting a local service instance ([0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Guim in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of “Pilkington et al.” (US PGPUB 2005/0138638) (Hereinafter Pilkington).
With respect to claim 4, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maskara does not teach wherein the circuitry is to: based on a quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service.
However, Pilkington teaches wherein the circuitry is to: based on a quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service (communications involve one object (referred to as a “client” object) invoking a service provided by another object (referred to as a “server” object). The server object appears as a “remote” object to the client object, and the client object appears as a “remote” object to the server object. The wire engines 206 a-206 n may set up the invocation of a service provided by a server object, provide arguments or parameters for the service from the client object to the server object, receive results from the server object, provide the results to the client object, and terminate the communication. The wire engines 206 a-206 n could represent co-processors that are coupled to the processors 102 a-102 n.; Figs. 1-2, [0040]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting a local service instance to Maskara because Maskara discloses identifying devices for a service request ([0022]) and Pilkington suggests selecting a local service instance ([0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Pilkington in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
With respect to claim 5, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maskara does not teach wherein the circuitry is to: based on a quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server in a same rack as a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service.
However, Pilkington teaches wherein the circuitry is to: based on a quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server in a same rack as a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service (communications involve one object (referred to as a “client” object) invoking a service provided by another object (referred to as a “server” object). The server object appears as a “remote” object to the client object, and the client object appears as a “remote” object to the server object. The wire engines 206 a-206 n may set up the invocation of a service provided by a server object, provide arguments or parameters for the service from the client object to the server object, receive results from the server object, provide the results to the client object, and terminate the communication. The wire engines 206 a-206 n could represent co-processors that are coupled to the processors 102 a-102 n.; Figs. 1-2, [0040]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting a local service instance to Maskara because Maskara discloses identifying devices for a service request ([0022]) and Pilkington suggests selecting a local service instance ([0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Pilkington in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of “Gao et al.” (US PGPUB 2024/0012666) (Hereinafter Gao).
With respect to claim 6, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maskara does not teach wherein the network interface device comprises: second circuitry that is to: in response to a request to construct a container, construct the container from an encrypted root file system and provide access to the container to a host system.
However, Gao teaches wherein the network interface device comprises: second circuitry that is to: in response to a request to construct a container, construct the container from an encrypted root file system and provide access to the container to a host system (a container sensitive data protection engine generates a Pod overlay from a root file system and related encrypted container images as read-only container base images; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate constructing an encrypted container to Maskara because Maskara discloses providing service functions ([0029]) and Gao suggests constructing an encrypted container ([0027]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Gao in the Maskara system in order to prevent access to sensitive information.
Claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of “Bernat et al.” (US PGPUB 2019/0222518) (Hereinafter Bernat).
With respect to claim 8, Maskara teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Maskara does not teach comprising a server that executes a process that is to issue the request, wherein the process is to specify a quality of service for the request.
However, Bernat teaches comprising a server that executes a process that is to issue the request, wherein the process is to specify a quality of service for the request (edge device 110 executes an application 112 that sends service requests. Network device 200 evaluates QoS requirements (e.g., QoS deadlines, latency requirements, throughput requirements, etc.) associated with the request; Fig. 1, [0017]-[0018], [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate specifying a quality of service for the request to Maskara because Maskara discloses routing service requests based on request metadata ([0019]) and Bernat suggests specifying a quality of service for the request ([0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bernat in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
With respect to claim 9, Maskara teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Fig. 7, [0057]-[0058]) to:
configure a network interface device (computer 810; Fig. 7, [0056]) to:
select a servicing node based on network latency and proximity of the requested service to the network interface device, wherein the proximity of the requested service includes execution in the network interface device (identifying a service endpoint that is closest to requester in terms of network latency. Determining that the receiving service endpoint is the service endpoint that is closest to the requester; Fig. 1, [0022], [0029]).
Maskara does not teach associate a quality of service with a request to perform a service.
However, Bernat teaches associate a quality of service with a request to perform a service (network device 200 receives a request to access a service and evaluates QoS requirements (e.g., QoS deadlines, latency requirements, throughput requirements, etc.) associated with the request.; Figs. 2-3 and 6, [0036], [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate associating a quality of service with a request to Maskara because Maskara discloses routing service requests based on request metadata ([0019]) and Bernat suggests associating a quality of service with a request ([0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bernat in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
The limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of Bernat, and further in view of Bedekar.
With respect to claim 10, Maskara as modified teaches the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9. Maskara does not teach wherein the quality of service comprises a range of number of network device hops to the servicing node.
However, Bedekar teaches wherein the quality of service comprises a range of number of network device hops to the servicing node (service requirements include QoS parameters such as a maximum number of hops; [0045], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a quality of service comprising a number of network device hops to Maskara because Maskara discloses receiving a service request ([0019]) and Bedekar suggests using a quality of service comprising a number of network device hops ([0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedekar in the Maskara system in order to improve service response time.
The limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 10 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of Bernat, and further in view of Guim.
With respect to claim 11, Maskara as modified teaches the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9. Maskara does not teach comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: based on the quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by the network interface device.
However, Guim teaches comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: based on the quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by the network interface device (service resources are implemented in an edge gateway; Figs. 1 and 2A, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting a local service instance to Maskara because Maskara discloses identifying devices for a service request ([0022]) and Guim suggests selecting a local service instance ([0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Guim in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
The limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 11 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of Bernat, and further in view of Pilkington.
With respect to claim 12, Maskara as modified teaches the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9. Maskara does not teach comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: based on the quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service.
However, Pilkington teaches comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: based on the quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service (communications involve one object (referred to as a “client” object) invoking a service provided by another object (referred to as a “server” object). The server object appears as a “remote” object to the client object, and the client object appears as a “remote” object to the server object. The wire engines 206 a-206 n may set up the invocation of a service provided by a server object, provide arguments or parameters for the service from the client object to the server object, receive results from the server object, provide the results to the client object, and terminate the communication. The wire engines 206 a-206 n could represent co-processors that are coupled to the processors 102 a-102 n.; Figs. 1-2, [0040]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting a local service instance to Maskara because Maskara discloses identifying devices for a service request ([0022]) and Pilkington suggests selecting a local service instance ([0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Pilkington in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
With respect to claim 13, Maskara as modified teaches the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9. Maskara does not teach comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: based on the quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server in a same rack as a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service.
However, Pilkington teaches comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: based on the quality of service, select an instance of the requested service that is executed by a server in a same rack as a server that executes an issuer of the request to perform the service (communications involve one object (referred to as a “client” object) invoking a service provided by another object (referred to as a “server” object). The server object appears as a “remote” object to the client object, and the client object appears as a “remote” object to the server object. The wire engines 206 a-206 n may set up the invocation of a service provided by a server object, provide arguments or parameters for the service from the client object to the server object, receive results from the server object, provide the results to the client object, and terminate the communication. The wire engines 206 a-206 n could represent co-processors that are coupled to the processors 102 a-102 n.; Figs. 1-2, [0040]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate selecting a local service instance to Maskara because Maskara discloses identifying devices for a service request ([0022]) and Pilkington suggests selecting a local service instance ([0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Pilkington in the Maskara system in order to reduce service latencies.
The limitations of claims 18-19 are rejected in the analysis of claims 12-13 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskara in view of Bernat, and further in view of Gao.
With respect to claim 14, Maskara as modified teaches the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9. Maskara does not teach comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in response to a request to construct a container, construct the container from an encrypted root file system and provide access to the container to a host system.
However, Gao teaches comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in response to a request to construct a container, construct the container from an encrypted root file system and provide access to the container to a host system (a container sensitive data protection engine generates a Pod overlay from a root file system and related encrypted container images as read-only container base images; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate constructing an encrypted container to Maskara because Maskara discloses providing service functions ([0029]) and Gao suggests constructing an encrypted container ([0027]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Gao in the Maskara system in order to prevent access to sensitive information.
The limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 14 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Boutros et al. US 2017/0026461. Discloses selecting devices associated with a service request.
Yang et al. US 2022/0225226. Discloses selecting the best node to provide a service.
Sankar et al. US 2016/0044095. Discloses distributing service sessions in a service data network.
Guim Bernat et al. US 2021/0328886. Discloses selecting a service node based on telemetry data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
February 6, 2026