DETAILED ACTION
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 the original application filed on 7/28/2023.
Claims 1-19 are rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,384.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,384 by omitting the below limitations:
instructions for interconnecting with a plurality of additional cloud adaptive devices to provision the one or more services, wherein the smart cloud adaptive device and each of the plurality additional cloud adaptive devices are located on the same customer premises; and
wherein instructions for enabling functionality among a plurality of functionalities to provision the one or more services comprises instructions for enabling functionality among a plurality of functionalities to provision at least two services simultaneously, based on the at least one configuration file.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 2-8 depend on independent claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,384.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,384 by omitting the below limitations:
interconnecting, with the smart cloud adaptive device, with a plurality of additional cloud adaptive devices to provision the one or more services, wherein the smart cloud adaptive device and each of the plurality additional cloud adaptive devices are located on the same customer premises; and
enabling functionality among a plurality of functionalities to provision the one or more services comprises enabling functionality among a plurality of functionalities to provision at least two services simultaneously, based on the at least one configuration file.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 10-15 depend on independent claim 9, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,384.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 16 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,384 by omitting the below limitations:
instructions for interconnecting with a plurality of additional cloud adaptive devices to provision the one or more services, wherein the smart cloud adaptive device and each of the plurality additional cloud adaptive devices are located on the same customer premises; and
wherein instructions for enabling functionality among a plurality of functionalities to provision the one or more services comprises instructions for enabling functionality among a plurality of functionalities to provision at least two services simultaneously, based on the at least one configuration file.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 17-19 depend on independent claim 16, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,669.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,669 by omitting parts of several limitations (struck-out portions of the below limitations are the omitted portions):
instructions for transmitting
instructions for receiving,
instructions for enabling, on the smart cloud adaptive device
wherein the smart cloud adaptive device
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 2-8 depend on independent claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,669.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,669 by omitting parts of several limitations (struck-out portions of the below limitations are the omitted portions):
A method of adaptively configuring customer premises equipment, the method comprising:
communicating, via a smart cloud adaptive device
transmitting, with the smart cloud adaptive device
receiving, with the smart cloud adaptive device
enabling, on the smart cloud adaptive device
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 10-15 depend on independent claim 9, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,669.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 16 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,669 by omitting parts of several limitations (struck-out portions of the below limitations are the omitted portions):
a smart cloud adaptive device,
at least one processor;
instructions for transmitting,
instructions for receiving,
instructions for enabling, on the smart cloud adaptive device
wherein the smart cloud adaptive device is a generic device unassociated with the dedicated device until the hardware and functionality are enabled, on the smart cloud adaptive device.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 17-19 depend on independent claim 16, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin (US 2013/0031028).
Regarding Claim 1, Martin discloses a smart cloud adaptive device comprising (Martin, Fig 3 items 302 and 308, paragraph 43, cloud exchange 308 provides a mechanism for the trading of computing resources and/or storage resources provided by cloud computing providers 302, paragraph 40, the steps in the figures may be implemented by one or more of the components in Figs 1 and 2 and/or other components, including other computing devices):
at least one processor (Martin, Fig 1 items 100, 103, 105, paragraph 28, computing system environment 100 may include a computing device 101 that has a processor 103);
one or more wireless programmable radios configured to communicate with a network termination device (Martin, Fig 1 items 101 and 825, paragraph 35, computing device 101 may be connected to the LAN 825 through a network interface or adapter, or may connect to WAN via a modem, since the device can connect to WAN or LAN there inherently would be radios);
a non-transitory computer readable medium having encoded thereon computer software comprising a set of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the smart cloud adaptive device to perform one or more operations, the set of instructions comprising (Martin, Fig 1 items 100, 101, 103, 105, paragraph 28, computing system environment 100 may include a computing device 101 that has a processor 103 and RAM 105 where computer-executable instructions can be stored):
instructions for communicating with a cloud configuration server over a network via the one or more wireless programmable radios and through the network termination device (Martin, Fig 3 cloud providers 302, Fig 4 block 408, paragraph 58, if the content is validated, the content is then passed to the cloud provider who submitted the contract at block 408);
instructions for transmitting one or more service codes associated with one or more services to be provided to the customer (Martin, Fig 4 step 401, paragraph 53, at block 401 cloud customer 301 requests cloud services 306 or 307, these requested services may be represented by different forms, the representations of the requested services are considered to be service codes);
instructions for receiving one or more configuration files from the cloud configuration server based on the one or more service codes (Martin, Fig 3 items 301 and 309, Fig 4, blocks 409 and 410, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider may provision the contracted services, at block 410, validator and normalizer 309 verifies and validates cloud services provided to the cloud customer 301 by the contracted cloud provider, the information provided to validator and normalizer would represent configuration files to provision the service); and
instructions for enabling functionality associated with a dedicated device among a plurality of functionalities on the smart cloud adaptive device to provision the one or more services based on the one or more configuration files, wherein the smart cloud adaptive device is unassociated with the dedicated device until the hardware and functionality are enabled, on the smart cloud adaptive device (Martin, Fig 3 items 301, 308, and 309, Fig 4, blocks 409 and 410, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider may provision the contracted services, at block 410, validator and normalizer 309 of cloud exchange 308 verifies and validates cloud services provided to the cloud customer 301 by the contracted cloud provider, paragraph 48 cloud exchange 308 may support different models for cloud computing, such as software as a service (SaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), paragraphs 50 and 51, IaaS may deliver computer infrastructure as a service for the cloud customer, hence functionality and hardware are enabled on the cloud exchange, and are unassociated until this enabling);
PNG
media_image1.png
751
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Martin discloses a method of adaptively configuring customer premises equipment, the method comprising:
communicating, via a smart cloud adaptive device, with a cloud configuration server (Martin, Fig 3 items 302 and 308, paragraph 43, cloud exchange 308 provides a mechanism for the trading of computing resources and/or storage resources provided by cloud computing providers 302, Fig 4 block 408, paragraph 58, if the content is validated, the content is then passed to the cloud provider who submitted the contract at block 408);
transmitting, with the smart cloud adaptive device, one or more service codes associated with one or more services to be provided to the customer (Martin, Fig 4 step 401, paragraph 53, at block 401 cloud customer 301 requests cloud services 306 or 307, these requested services may be represented by different forms, the requested services are considered to be service codes);
receiving, with the smart cloud adaptive device, one or more configuration files from the cloud configuration server based on the one or more service codes (Martin, Fig 3 items 301 and 309, Fig 4, blocks 409 and 410, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider may provision the contracted services, at block 410, validator and normalizer 309 verifies and validates cloud services provided to the cloud customer 301 by the contracted cloud provider, the information provided to validator and normalizer would represent configuration files to provision the service); and
enabling, with the smart cloud adaptive device, functionality associated with a dedicated device among a plurality of functionalities on the smart cloud adaptive device to provision the one or more services based on the one or more configuration files, wherein the smart cloud adaptive device is unassociated with the dedicated device until hardware and functionality are enabled, on the smart cloud adaptive device (Martin, Fig 3 items 301, 308, and 309, Fig 4, blocks 409 and 410, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider may provision the contracted services, at block 410, validator and normalizer 309 of cloud exchange 308 verifies and validates cloud services provided to the cloud customer 301 by the contracted cloud provider, paragraph 48 cloud exchange 308 may support different models for cloud computing, such as software as a service (SaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), paragraphs 50 and 51, IaaS may deliver computer infrastructure as a service for the cloud customer, hence functionality and hardware are enabled on the cloud exchange, and are unassociated until this enabling);
Regarding Claim 16, Martin discloses a system for configuring a smart cloud adaptive device, the system comprising:
a cloud configuration server comprising a plurality of configuration files, each of the plurality of configuration files being associated with a respective service code (Martin, Fig 3 item 301 and 302, Fig 4 step 401, 409, and 410, paragraph 53, at block 401 cloud customer 301 requests cloud services from cloud providers 302, these requested services may be represented by different forms, the requested services are considered to be service codes, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider 302 may provision the contracted services);
a network termination device connecting a customer premises to the cloud configuration server (Martin, Fig 1 items 101 and 825, paragraph 35, computing device 101 may be connected to the LAN 825 through a network interface or adapter, or may connect to WAN via a modem, since the device can connect to WAN or LAN there inherently would be radios);
the smart cloud adaptive device, comprising (Martin, Fig 3 items 302 and 308, paragraph 43, cloud exchange 308 provides a mechanism for the trading of computing resources and/or storage resources provided by cloud computing providers 302):
at least one processor (Martin, Fig 1 items 100, 103, 105, paragraph 28, computing system environment 100 may include a computing device 101 that has a processor 103);
one or more wireless programmable radios configured to communicate with the network termination device (Martin, Fig 1 items 101 and 825, paragraph 35, computing device 101 may be connected to the LAN 825 through a network interface or adapter, or may connect to WAN via a modem, since the device can connect to WAN or LAN there inherently would be radios);
a non-transitory computer readable medium having encoded thereon computer software comprising a set of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the smart cloud adaptive device to perform one or more operations, the set of instructions comprising (Martin, Fig 1 items 100, 101, 103, 105, paragraph 28, computing system environment 100 may include a computing device 101 that has a processor 103 and RAM 105 where computer-executable instructions can be stored):
instructions for communicating with the cloud configuration server over a network via the one or more wireless programmable radios and via the network termination device (Martin, Fig 3 cloud providers 302, Fig 4 block 408, paragraph 58, if the content is validated, the content is then passed to the cloud provider who submitted the contract at block 408);
instructions for transmitting one or more service codes associated with one or more services to be provided to the customer at the customer premises (Martin, Fig 3 items 301, 306, 307, Fig 4 step 401, paragraph 53, at block 401 cloud customer 301 requests cloud services 306 or 307, these requested services may be represented by different forms, the requested services are considered to be service codes);
instructions for receiving one or more configuration files from the cloud configuration server based on the one or more service codes (Martin, Fig 3 items 301 and 309, Fig 4, blocks 409 and 410, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider may provision the contracted services, at block 410, validator and normalizer 309 verifies and validates cloud services provided to the cloud customer 301 by the contracted cloud provider, the information provided to validator and normalizer would represent configuration files to provision the service); and
instructions for enabling functionality associated with a dedicated device among a plurality of functionalities on the smart cloud adaptive device to provision the one or more services based on the one or more configuration files, wherein the smart cloud adaptive device is unassociated with the dedicated device until the hardware and functionality are enabled, on the smart cloud adaptive device (Martin, Fig 3 items 301, 308, and 309, Fig 4, blocks 409 and 410, paragraph 58, at block 409 the cloud provider may provision the contracted services, at block 410, validator and normalizer 309 verifies and validates cloud services provided to the cloud customer 301 by the contracted cloud provider, paragraph 48 cloud exchange 308 may support different models for cloud computing, such as software as a service (SaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), paragraphs 50 and 51, IaaS may deliver computer infrastructure as a service for the cloud customer as opposed to needing to purchase purchasing servers, data center space, or network equipment, thus taking the place of dedicated device(s), PaaS may provide a computing platform without the cost and complexity of buying and managing the underlying hardware and software layers, also taking the place of dedicated device(s), hence functionality and hardware are enabled on the cloud exchange, and are unassociated until this enabling);
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Smedman (US 2015/0071271).
Regarding Claim 2, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the functionality includes residential gateway functionality, however Smedman discloses wherein the functionality includes residential gateway functionality (Smedman, paragraph 86, when the user’s residential gateway starts up, a registration message is sent to the cloud-based matchmaking service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding residential gateway functionality as taught by Smedman. Because Martin and Smedman teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Smedman teaches residential gateway functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of improved resource handling in a communication system (Smedman, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 9, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the functionality includes residential gateway functionality, however Smedman discloses wherein the functionality includes residential gateway functionality (Smedman, paragraph 86, when the user’s residential gateway starts up, a registration message is sent to the cloud-based matchmaking service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding residential gateway functionality as taught by Smedman. Because Martin and Smedman teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Smedman teaches residential gateway functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of improved resource handling in a communication system (Smedman, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 16, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more wireless programmable radios are configured to communicate with the network termination device via a residential gateway, however Smedman discloses wherein the one or more wireless programmable radios are configured to communicate with the network termination device via a residential gateway (Smedman, paragraph 86, when the user’s residential gateway starts up, a registration message is sent to the cloud-based matchmaking service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding residential gateway functionality as taught by Smedman. Because Martin and Smedman teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Smedman teaches residential gateway functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of improved resource handling in a communication system (Smedman, paragraph 1).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Fouillade (US 2012/0316676).
Regarding Claim 3, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the functionality includes wireless access point functionality, however Fouillade discloses wherein the functionality includes wireless access point functionality (Fouillade, Fig 4 items 104, 402, paragraph 58, the wireless access point 402 can provide access to cloud services 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding wireless access point functionality as taught by Fouillade. Because Martin and Fouillade teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Fouillade teaches wireless access point functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of initial interaction between a mobile rot and a user (Fouillade, abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 9, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the functionality includes wireless access point functionality, however Fouillade discloses wherein the functionality includes wireless access point functionality (Fouillade, Fig 4 items 104, 402, paragraph 58, the wireless access point 402 can provide access to cloud services 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding wireless access point functionality as taught by Fouillade. Because Martin and Fouillade teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Fouillade teaches wireless access point functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of initial interaction between a mobile rot and a user (Fouillade, abstract).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Yu (US 2015/0095936).
Regarding Claim 4, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the functionality includes set-top box functionality, however Yu teaches wherein the functionality includes set-top box functionality (Yu, Fig 2 items 52 and 70, paragraph 29, the media content in the video/cloud services repository 70 can be delivered to recipients such as set-top box 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding set-top box functionality as taught by Yu. Because Martin and Yu teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Yu teaches set-top box functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of enabling transmission information to a set-top box (Yu, abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 9, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the functionality includes set-top box functionality, however Yu teaches wherein the functionality includes set-top box functionality (Yu, Fig 2 items 52 and 70, paragraph 29, the media content in the video/cloud services repository 70 can be delivered to recipients such as set-top box 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding set-top box functionality as taught by Yu. Because Martin and Yu teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Yu teaches set-top box functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of enabling transmission information to a set-top box (Yu, abstract).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Smith (US 2015/0039737).
Regarding Claim 5, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes Internet protocol telephony, however Smith teaches wherein the functionality includes Internet protocol telephony (Smith, Fig 5 item 16, the server 16 hosting the cloud service may host cloud services such as IP telephony).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding internet protocol telephony as taught by Smith. Because Martin and Smith teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Smith teaches internet protocol telephony for the benefit of the analogous art of cloud service deployment (Smith, paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 9, but do not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes Internet protocol telephony, however Smith teaches wherein the functionality includes Internet protocol telephony (Smith, Fig 5 item 16, the server 16 hosting the cloud service may host cloud services such as IP telephony).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding internet protocol telephony as taught by Smith. Because Martin and Smith teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Smith teaches internet protocol telephony for the benefit of the analogous art of cloud service deployment (Smith, paragraph 7).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Cox (US 2014/0200840).
Regarding Claim 6, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes sensory device functionality, however Cox teaches wherein the functionality includes sensory device functionality (Cox, paragraph 42, a system for connection measurement sensors to portable devices, and synchronizing the information with a cloud service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding sensory device functionality as taught by Cox. Because Martin and Cox teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Cox teaches sensory device functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of a sensing system for measuring parameters associated with a portable device (Cox, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 9, but do not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes sensory device functionality, however Cox teaches wherein the functionality includes sensory device functionality (Cox, paragraph 42, a system for connection measurement sensors to portable devices, and synchronizing the information with a cloud service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding sensory device functionality as taught by Cox. Because Martin and Cox teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Cox teaches sensory device functionality for the benefit of the analogous art of a sensing system for measuring parameters associated with a portable device (Cox, paragraph 1).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Kuntz (US 2013/0303884).
Regarding Claim 7, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes wireless tomography, however Kuntz teaches wherein the functionality includes wireless tomography (Kuntz, Fig 1 items 101 and 103, paragraph 67, the tomography system 101 is directly connected to HPC 103 such as cloud systems, paragraph 41, a computer program for performing the described method is provided on a server to be downloaded via any wireless connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding wireless tomography as taught by Kuntz. Because Martin and Kuntz teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Kuntz teaches wireless tomography for the benefit of the analogous art of a method of radiologically guiding an instrument (Kuntz, abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 9, but do not explicitly teach wherein the functionality includes wireless tomography, however Kuntz teaches wherein the functionality includes wireless tomography (Kuntz, Fig 1 items 101 and 103, paragraph 67, the tomography system 101 is directly connected to HPC 103 such as cloud systems, paragraph 41, a computer program for performing the described method is provided on a server to be downloaded via any wireless connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding wireless tomography as taught by Kuntz. Because Martin and Kuntz teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Kuntz teaches wireless tomography for the benefit of the analogous art of a method of radiologically guiding an instrument (Kuntz, abstract).
Claim 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Minges (US 2013/0035869).
Regarding Claim 8, Martin further teaches further comprising:
an interface port, the interface port being configured to allow other user devices to receive the one or more services (Martin, Fig 3 item 312, paragraph 44, communications interface 312 interfaces between cloud customers 301 and cloud traders acting to buy and sell services on behalf of cloud providers 302).
Martin does not explicitly teach the below limitation:
a housing, the housing being configured to plug into an existing power outlet for obtaining power;
However Minges teaches the below limitation:
a housing, the housing being configured to plug into an existing power outlet for obtaining power (Minges, Fig 1 item 120, paragraph 28, device 120 includes housing which universally mounts to electrical unit, for example a standard 110V or 220V electrical wall outlet);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding housing with a standard electrical outlet as taught by Minges. Because Martin and Minges teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Huh teaches housing with a standard electrical outlet for the benefit of the analogous art of monitoring and sampling air quality (Minges, abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Martin further teaches wherein the smart cloud adaptive device further comprises:
an interface port, the interface port being configured to allow other user devices to receive the one or more services (Martin, Fig 3 item 312, paragraph 44, communications interface 312 interfaces between cloud customers 301 and cloud traders acting to buy and sell services on behalf of cloud providers 302).
Martin does not explicitly teach the below limitation:
a housing, the housing being configured to plug into existing home power outlets for obtaining power;
However Minges teaches the below limitation:
a housing, the housing being configured to plug into existing home power outlets for obtaining power (Minges, Fig 1 item 120, paragraph 28, device 120 includes housing which universally mounts to electrical unit, for example a standard 110V or 220V electrical wall outlet);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding housing with a standard electrical outlet as taught by Minges. Because Martin and Minges teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Huh teaches housing with a standard electrical outlet for the benefit of the analogous art of monitoring and sampling air quality (Minges, abstract).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0031028) in view of Schenk (US 2009/0304060).
Regarding Claim 17, Martin teaches all the limitations of parent claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the network termination device is a digital subscriber line access multiplexer located in a central office, however Schenk teaches wherein the network termination device is a digital subscriber line access multiplexer located in a central office (Schenk, Fig 1a item 102, paragraph 67, DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer) 102 may be implemented as a Central Office or other types of network termination devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Martin by adding network termination device being a digital subscriber line access multiplexer in a central office as taught by Schenk. Because Martin and Schenk teach communications in a wireless network, and specifically Schenk teaches network termination device being a digital subscriber line access multiplexer in a central office for the benefit of the analogous art of probing and estimation of cross-coupling in a Vector transmission system (Schenk, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAD N DEFAUW whose telephone number is (571)272-6905. The examiner can normally be reached on the first Thursday and Friday of the bi-week 9 am – 5 pm, or the second Monday and Tuesday of the bi-week 9 am – 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571) 270-7191. 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.
/T.N.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights