Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to communications filed 07/28/2023. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Specifically,
Claim 6 recites the limitation “differentiating between devices with indistinguishable identifying information based on one or more additional criteria”, whereas claims 1 recites: “a specific subtended device in a computer network;” As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similarly, claim 18 recites: “ differentiating between devices with indistinguishable identifying information based on one or more additional criteria”, whereas claims 13 recites: “a specific subtended device in a computer network;” As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and fails to remedy the deficiency therein. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafiq et al (US 2012/0059934 A1) in view of Agerstam et al (WO-2018063603-A1)
Re: Claim 1, Rafiq teaches a method, comprising:
discovering, by a process, a plurality of remote access enabled gateways (Rafiq: [0004] The systems and methods include a designated or master access gateway that receives load metrics and capabilities from a plurality of access gateways; FIG 6, Remote Access Gateways 605a-n, [0225]; [0228] “the master [gateway] may query the access gateways 605 for their capabilities …”; [0250]-[0251] ref FIG 7 (step 701), “access gateway 605 of a plurality of access gateways 605 receives a load metric for each of the plurality of access gateways 605”)
(i) with access to a [target] device (Rafiq: FIG 6, Appliance 200/Server 106/Device 100, Controller 610; Client 102;. [0225] “Each of the access gateways 605 communicates with a plurality of clients 102 and a plurality of servers 106”; where Examiner notes (Rafiq: [0042]) that “clients 102 may also be referred to as client nodes or endpoints [and] client 102 has the capacity to function as … an application server providing access to hosted applications for other clients 102a-102n”; [0114] destination server; [0314] targeted node (Controller)) in a computer network (Rafiq: [0225] Ref FIG. 6, “system 600 includes a plurality of access gateways 605 in communication … over a network 104”.).
determining, by the process, connective functionality (Rafiq: “capabilities”) of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways (Rafiq: [0062] ref FIG 1D, “monitoring service 198 and/or monitoring agent 197 performs monitoring … of any network resource [including] appliance 200, appliance 205, or network connection”; [0103] ref FIG 2A “health monitoring program 216 may ping [appliance 200] to check if a program, process, service or task is active and currently running; [0111] ref FIG 2B “appliance 200 may respond to a ping to the client's IntranetIP”; [0229] –[0231] “capabilities of each of the access gateways include permissible session establishment rate …. sessions may be compared against the processing capacity of the access gateway 605” (FIG 6)) (ii) to the [target] device (Rafiq: [0051] ref FIG. 1D, “network environment for delivering and/or operating a computing environment on a client 102 … server 106 includes an application delivery system 190 for delivering a computing environment or an application and/or data file to one or more clients 102 [that are] in communication with a server 106 via network 104, 104' and appliance 200”; [0114] destination server; [0314] targeted node (Controller))
determining, by the process, a level of utilization (Rafiq: “load”) of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways; (Rafiq: ref FIG 6, [0225] “system 600 also includes a shared memory 615, for storing load metrics of the access gateways 605 and/or their controllers 610; [0237] “the master [gateway] receives information about the capabilities of the controllers 610 of the access gateways 605 [which] may include load metrics. A load metric may be based on a controller's 610 CPU usage. [0239], [0249] “controller 610 of the master [gateway] retrieves the load metrics of the access gateways 605 from memory 615; [0250]-[0251] ref FIG 7 (step 701), “access gateway 605 of a plurality of access gateways 605 receives a load metric for each of the plurality of access gateways 605; [0265] – [0266] Access Gateway (AG) informs Controller farm about its current load metric; “AG server [may] store real-time statistics in shared memory, such that the connector can send up to date information. The controller may store the AG load metric…”)
selecting, by the process, a specific gateway of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways through which to open an access session (Rafiq: [0239] ref FIG 6. [0247], [0261] – starting new session) (iii) to the [target] device based on the specific gateway having sufficient connective functionality (“capabilities”) (Rafiq: [0114] ref FIG 2B “appliance 200 provides switching or load-balancing functionality 284 for communications between the client 102 and server 106 … if the appliance 200 detects a server 106 is not available or has a load over a predetermined threshold, the appliance 200 can direct or distribute client requests to another server 106”; [0252] “capabilities of each of the access gateways include permissible session establishment rate’ [(PER)]” ; [0275] session establishment criteria include latency threshold for VPN and ICA traffic) and further based on the level of utilization of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways (Rafiq: [0239], [0249] ref FIG 6 “Based on the load metrics, the controller 610 determines whether to redirect the request and if so, which access gateway 605 shall receive the redirected request; [0266] “AG server [may] store real-time statistics in shared memory, such that the connector can send up to date information. The controller may store the AG load metric and makes load balancing decision based on the algorithm chosen; [0301] “the gateway may report a health metric composed of the union of two values: its load metric L and a value of [permissible (session) establishment rate] PER …”)
Rafiq does not explicitly teach:
(i) discovering … a plurality of remote access enabled gateways with access to a specific subtended device
(ii) determining … connective functionality of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways to the specific subtended device
(iii) selecting … a specific gateway … through which to open an access session to the specific subtended device based on the specific gateway having sufficient connective functionality
Agerstam teaches:
(i) discovering … a plurality of remote access enabled gateways (Agerstam: [0048] “.. the system may scan for discovery of available devices. GWs can employ various mechanisms to discover not only sensor platforms but other GWs as well) with access to a specific subtended device (Agerstam ref FIG 4, [0054] “A GW 404 that manages a specific sensor device 406 is said to "own" that sensor device 406. In the illustrated embodiment, each GW 404 owns a set of sensor devices 406 …”, [0058] “each GW 404 [is able to] view of all of the sensor devices 406, including which GW currently owns a specific sensor device…” )
(ii) determining … connective functionality of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways to the specific subtended device (Agerstam: [0048] “Discovery techniques for sensor platforms can include received signal strength indicator (RSSI), Time of Flight (TOF), global positioning system (GPS) or other location services …”; [0058] ref Fig. 4 “each GW 404 [is able to] view of all of the sensor devices 406, including which GW currently owns a specific sensor device as well as a quality metric that can be used to make a decision to hand-off ownership from one GW to another. Examples of a quality metric include received signal strength …”;[0066] ref FIG 5, “Each GW 506 may periodically reconnect to its owned ... nodes (e.g., sensors or actuators) ... If the GW fails to re-connect to the node in a specified period of time, the node can assume that the GW is out of range or has gone offline [and] the node [status] can change … to indicate that it is "not owned" so that the [node] can be picked up by another GW. This should allow for a more robust network.; [0068] ref Fig. 6 “an loT network 600 configured to employ decentralized coordination for gateway ownership of sensors .. Each sensor device 608 can measure proximity to the closest GW 606 through path-loss (e.g. RSSI).
(iii) selecting … a specific gateway (Agerstam: “owner”)… through which to open an access session to the specific subtended device (Agerstam: [0018] a gateway ownership of a sensor or set of sensors may mean the gateway has responsibility for relaying and reporting data from the sensor or set of sensor nodes; [0030] “The loT devices may be accessible through remote computers … to control systems or access data”; [0074] ref FIG 7, [0076] ref FIG 7A (owning) gateway receives sensor data)
based on the specific gateway having sufficient connective functionality (Agerstam: [0018] “various factors such as quality metrics, signal strength … may be taken into when ownership decisions are made” ; [0020] The ownership of a sensor device … can be transferred from one GW to another GW based on a variety of criteria such as proximity, load balancing, GW fault detection, and other conditions; [0059] ref FIG 4, “GW 404 [may] request ownership of a specific sensor device 406 if the that GW 404 deems to more efficiently and reliably be able to track that sensor device 406. A GW 404 may also request for another GW 404 in the GW network to take ownership of a specific or a set of sensor devices 406 if the GW detects that the quality or spectrum efficiency tracking that sensor device 406 is deteriorating”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agerstam, re: selecting a (master) gateway with access to a specific subtended (Agerstam: “owned”) device as device “owner” for load balancing among the gateways (Agerstam:[0018] , [0020], [0060]) , based on “connective functionality” (Agerstam: [0018] quality metrics, signal strength; [0020] “proximity”, [0059] ref FIG 4; [0068] RSSI), where the target device is an (Industrial) IoT device/sensor (Agerstam: :[0007] ref Fig. 3 “loT system having an loT network of sensors and gateway devices …”; [0047] ref Figs. 4-7, Multiple GWs may be employed in a GW/sensor network in an loT system in a[n] … industrial setting”) with those of Rafiq re: use of a master access gateway (AG) for load balancing of access gateways (Rafiq : [0224] “a controller 150' may be deployed on any device 100, such as an appliance 200 … this controller 150' may be a master controller for the access gateways … an appliance 200 may include the controller and load balance the access gateways; [0226]) with access to target device(s) (Rafiq: [0051] ref FIG. 1D; [0114] destination server; [0314] target node/controller) since Agerstam specifically teaches such a mechanism for these type of devices, and since such “[o]wnership mechanisms … may promote system management and efficiency … [and] reduce over-the-air traffic” (Agerstam: [0018])
Claims 13 and 19 do not teach or define any new limitations above claim 1. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 2, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, further comprising: causing opening of the access session. (Rafiq: [0239] ref FIG 6, When an access gateway 605 receives a request to start a new session from a client, the access gateway 605 may transmit a request to the master to determine if the new session is to be redirected to another access gateway 605; [0247] When an access gateway 605 receives … a request to start a new session, [it] evaluates the request [to determine if] the request indicates redirection; [0261] When an AG attempts to start a new session flow …. Controller determines if the new session should be redirected to a different AG)
Claims 14 and 20 do not teach or define any new limitations above claim 2. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 3, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein selecting is in response to learning of a new access session being initiated to the specific subtended device. (Rafiq: [0004] The systems and methods include a designated or master access gateway that receives load metrics and capabilities from a plurality of access gateways. Based on the load metrics, the master determines whether a client request to start a new session should be serviced by the access gateway that receives the request or another gateway in the plurality of access gateways; [0239] ref FIG 6, When an access gateway 605 receives a request to start a new session from a client, the access gateway 605 may transmit a request to the master to determine if the new session is to be redirected to another access gateway 605; [0247] When an access gateway 605 receives … a request to start a new session, [it] evaluates the request [to determine if] the request indicates redirection; [0261] When an AG attempts to start a new session flow …. Controller determines if the new session should be redirected to a different AG)
Claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 3. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 4, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein selecting is performed during operation of the access session and based on updates to the connective functionality and the level of utilization of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways. (Rafiq: [0237] ref FIG 6, the master [gateway] receives information
about the capabilities of the controllers 610 of the access gateways 605. The capabilities of the controllers may include load metrics. A load metric may be based on a controller's 610 CPU usage …. The access gateway 605 may update the controller's 610 load metric with any degree of frequency. In some embodiments, the access gateway 605 continually monitors the controller's 610 CPU usage. In this manner, the gateway 605 may continually obtain information about the CPU …”; [0258] “[controller instance] information is stored in the database shared by all controllers in the same farm., the appliance or intermediary device 200 may be an access gateway (AG). which may be session orientated…., the information about a user session is fully stored and attainable on the Access Gateway device where the session is created and served”)
Claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 4. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 5, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein sufficient connective functionality is based on adequate and available CPU and memory resources. (Rafiq: [0229] –[0231] “capabilities of each of the access gateways include permissible session establishment rate …. sessions may be compared against the processing capacity of the access gateway 605 (also referred to herein as ‘CPU horsepower’). The CPU horsepower may depend upon the CPU architecture of the access gateway … the number of independent cores … and the amount of cache available per independent core or CPU”; [0278]-[0282] CPU horsepower computation includes available CPU and memory (cache))
Claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 5. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 6, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, including accessing a (specific) target device (Rafiq: [0225] FIG 6, [0114]; [0314])
Rafiq does not explicitly teach:
differentiating between devices with indistinguishable identifying information based on one or more additional criteria
Agerstam teaches:
differentiating between devices with indistinguishable identifying information based on one or more additional criteria (Agerstam: [0018] “the gateways can generally support multiple wireless technologies including a heterogeneous network. That is, if a gateway device has multiple interfaces, the gateway device can manage/interact with sensor nodes that use Bluetooth® low energy (BLE), IEEE standard 802.15.4, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agerstam re: differentiating between target devices based on supported access protocol with those of Rafiq re: accessing a specific target device in order to ensure the ability of the gateway to communicate with the target device using a supported protocol.
Claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 6. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 7, Rafiq in view of Agerstam teaches the method as in claim 6, including differentiating between devices with indistinguishable identifying information based on one or more additional criteria
Rafiq does not explicitly teach:
(i) the one or more additional criteria consist[s] of: access protocol
Agerstam teaches:
(i) the one or more additional criteria consist[s] of: access protocol (Agerstam: [0018] “the gateways can generally support multiple wireless technologies including a heterogeneous network. That is, if a gateway device has multiple interfaces, the gateway device can manage/interact with sensor nodes that use Bluetooth® low energy (BLE), IEEE standard 802.15.4, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agerstam re: differentiating between target devices based on supported access protocol with those of Rafiq re: accessing a specific target device in order to ensure the ability of the gateway to communicate with the target device using a supported protocol.
Re: Claim 8, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein selecting based on the level of utilization comprises: selecting the specific gateway as a least utilized gateway of the plurality of remote access enabled gateways (Rafiq: [0249] ref FIG 6, “controller 610 selects the least loaded gateway 605 to service the request, e.g., the controller 610 with the lowest CPU usage”; [0305] –[0308] gateway load balancing algorithms include least loaded; which “may be implemented by finding the [access] node with the lesser [load] metric”)
Re: Claim 9, Rafiq teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein discovering the plurality of remote access enabled gateways, determining the connective functionality determining the level of utilization, and selecting the specific gateway are performed in real-time. ( Rafiq: [0237] Ref Fig 6, the master receives information about the capabilities of the controllers 610 of the access gateways 605. The capabilities of the controllers may include load metrics [which] may be based on a controller's 610 CPU usage. … the access gateway 605 continually monitors the controller's 610 CPU usage.)
Re: Claim 10, Rafiq in view of Agerstam teaches the method as in claim 1, including discovering a plurality of remote access enabled gateways with access to a specific (subtended) device in a computer network (Rafiq: [0225] FIG 6, [0114]; [0314]); and Agerstam teaches: wherein the computer network comprises an Internet of Things network. (Agerstam: [0007] ref Fig. 3 “loT system having an loT network of sensors and gateway devices …” [0008] ref Fig. 4; [0009] ref Fig. 5; [0010] ref Fig. 6) Therefore, similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 11, Rafiq in view of Agerstam teaches the method as in claim 1, including discovering a plurality of remote access enabled gateways with access to a specific (subtended) device in a computer network (Rafiq: [0225] FIG 6, [0114]; [0314]); and Agerstam teaches: wherein the specific subtended device comprises an Internet of Things device. (Agerstam [0032] Fig. 1 - cloud computing network, or cloud 102, in communication with a number of Internet of Things (loT) devices.) Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 12, Rafiq in view of Agerstam teaches the method as in claim 10, including discovering a plurality of remote access enabled gateways with access to a specific (subtended) device in a computer network (Rafiq: [0225] FIG 6, [0114]; [0314]); and Agerstam teaches wherein the Internet of Things network comprises an Industrial Internet of Things network (Agerstam: [0030] Networks of loT devices may … factory automation, smart building, asset tracking/logistics, Operation Technology (OT) with industrial/factory networks, and the like; [0047] ref Figs. 4-7, Multiple GWs may be employed in a GW/sensor network in an loT system in a[n] … industrial setting”). Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure re: load balancing of remote access gateways:
Kim, Ryan Yong et al (US 2018/0309651 A1) ([0007] –[0010] “… techniques may be provided to determine connectivity to a network device …. The method may include determining that the computing device is connected to a network including: a local network including a network device; or a remote network; [0050] “When the access device is located within range of both gateways in the local area network, there is no problem accessing both network devices due to the ability of the access device to perform local discovery techniques; [0085]; [0088]”… gateway 110 can store an updated table/list of the statuses of each of the network devices 102 and 104 within the requesting network's local area network, the cloud network 114 and/or gateway 110 may communicate such status data to the network devices 102 and 104 and the access device; [0184])
Hammons (US 2018/0234489 A1) ([0001] The present disclosure generally relates to Information Handling Systems (IHSs), and, more particularly, to systems and methods for load balancing Internet-of-Things (IoT) gateways; [0031] – [0032] ref FIG. 1 “IoT devices 101 communicate with IoT gateway(s) 103 …. IoT gateway(s) 103 may include services such as protocol translation 104A, device management 104B, data aggregation 104C, and edge analytics 104N; [0066] ref FIG 4, Core services 402 enable IoT gateway(s) 103 to receive and store data in memory, to issue commands to IoT devices using device services 401, to manage metadata and provisioning of IoT devices, as well as IoT device registration and configuration; [0108] - [0109] “… techniques are presented for optimizing IoT gateway performance based on utilization and saturation rates, as well as other factors, of not only the internal components of the gateway (such as the CPU) but also of external devices connected to disparate bus architectures … [IOT gateway] performance can be optimized and long-term reliability improved through … load rebalancing to other gateways on the network [0121]- [0123]; [0144] ref FIGS. 6A-B - load balancing IoT gateways)
CHEN, Jian-hai et al (CN 117336297 A) ([0001] The present invention relates to the field of industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and load balancing, and more particularly, to a load balancing method and system for industrial smart gateways. [0008] –[0012] The invention proposes a load balancing method for industrial intelligent gateways, comprising the following steps: 1) Obtaining the load factors of each industrial intelligent gateway, where the load factor includes CPU utilization, memory utilization, disk I/O utilization, and network bandwidth utilization; 3) When all gateways meet the preset load conditions, the individual gateway load balancing utilization rate is calculated for each gateway based on its load factor. The average of all individual gateway load balancing utilization rates is then calculated to obtain the average gateway load balancing utilization rate; 4) Based on the obtained average gateway load balancing utilization rate, a load balancing strategy is used to optimize the overall load balancing of the industrial intelligent gateway system; [0013] Further, in step 1), the load factor includes CPU utilization C(Ni), memory utilization M(Ni), disk I/O utilization D(Ni), and network bandwidth utilization B(Ni).
PNG
media_image1.png
221
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0020] – [0023]; [0030] If the single-gateway load balancing utilization rate is greater than the average gateway load balancing utilization rate, distribute the pending tasks in the gateway's task list to other gateways to reduce its own single-gateway load balancing utilization rate ….If the single-gateway load balancing utilization rate is less than the average gateway load balancing utilization rate, the gateway receives tasks distributed by other gateways and adds them to its own task list, increasing its own single-gateway load balancing utilization rate…; [0051]; [0056] The industrial intelligent gateways are typically configured as a cluster, with each gateway connected to multiple industrial devices …Each industrial intelligent gateway uses different industrial communication protocols to collect data from the connected industrial equipment [0071] – [0073] A plurality of industrial intelligent gateways communicate with each other, maintain a list of single-gateway load balancing utilization rates of all gateways in a storage system in real time, and calculate a gateway average load balancing utilization rate L according to the list at the same time)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1pm-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/ROBERT A SHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457