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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/12/2026 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 21 and 31 have been amended. Claims 27 and 37 have been cancelled. Claims 41-42 have been added. Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-42 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/12/2026 with respect to pending claims above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
(i) In response to the applicant’s remark: “Tabares does not teach or suggest "selecting the hardware resource from the one or more hardware resources based on the respective hardware criterion and a user intent condition," as recited in amended claims 21 and 31. Rather, Tabares describes a broker-based system in which a client device receives a list of broker resources that a user is permitted to access along with blockchain information for connecting to those resources, and uses the blockchain information to validate connection authorizations when a broker server is unavailable. See Tabares, para. [0004]. Tabares does not disclose or suggest selecting a hardware resource based on a user intent condition. Because Tabares lacks any association between the selection of a hardware resource and a user intent condition, Tabares cannot be said to disclose selecting a hardware resource based on the respective hardware criterion and a user intent condition, as in amended claims 21 and 31” Page 1 Lines 20 – Page 2 lines 1.
In response to argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless; the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “select the hardware resource from the one or more hardware resources based on the respective hardware criteria and a user intent condition”, the examiner interprets such that “the hardware selected based on a user intent condition” as in a users’ intent such as the intention of selecting a resource or a version of the resource.
Specifically, Xia (US 2010/0235509 A1) discloses selecting the hardware resource based on the hardware criterion and a user intent condition (customer terminal selecting resources based on the required resource for the customer terminal, wherein the resources is any physical or virtual component within a computer system [0014], [0024-0025]. Resources selected may also be based on the version requested by the customer terminal, such that the customer terminal specifies the version of the resource [0015-0016], [0040], [0043]. Therefore, the customer terminal’s intent condition is the intent to request the resource or the specific version of the resource).
Applicant’s remaining arguments in regards to newly added claims are moot, because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim objection
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with a single period “.”. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. Please see MPEP 608.01(m), Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabares et al Pub. No.: (US 2020/0120039 A1) (hereinafter “Tabares”) in view of Xia et al Pub. No.: (US 2010/0235509 A1) (hereinafter "Xia”) and Lee et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0370330 A1) (hereinafter "Lee”).
With respect to claim 21: Tabares discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the WTRU comprising:
a processor, the processor configured to (microprocessors [0038]);
receive a first message from a first network node, wherein the first message indicates a list of hardware resource identifiers for one or more hardware resources, and wherein a hardware resource of the one or more hardware resources is associated with a respective hardware criterion for an application that executes on the WTRU (client launches a web user interface to request a list of resources the client device is permitted to access, the client device receives the list from the broker based on the access criteria [0022], [0042-0044], [0047], [Fig. 1], [Fig. 6]. Examiner interprets broker/server resources as hardware resources providing virtualization platforms such as Virtual apps and desktops [0022]);
send a second message to a second network node, wherein the second message indicates a request to establish a data session, and wherein the second message indicates a resource identifier for the selected hardware resource (client device sends a request message to the broker servers for instructions on how to launch one of the broker resource identified in the list of resources, the client device then sends a request to connect with the broker resource [0022], [0045], [0049], [Fig. 1], [Fig. 6]);
receive a third message from the second network node, wherein the third message indicates configuration information to access the selected hardware resource, and wherein the third message is received in response to the request to establish the data session (Client device sends a connection request to the broker resource, the broker resource determines whether the client device has permission to access the resource along with a duration. The broker resource uses the instructions to establish a connection with the client device [0022], [0044-0046], [Fig. 1], [Fig. 6]);
However, Tabares does not explicitly disclose select the hardware resource from the one or more hardware resources based on the hardware criterion and a user intent condition;
wherein the configuration information comprises an address of an edge device associated with the hardware resource;
Xia discloses select the hardware resource based on the hardware criterion and a user intent condition (selecting resources based on the required resource on a customer terminal, wherein the resources is any physical or virtual component within a computer system [0014], [0024-0025]. Resources selected may also be based on the version requested by the customer terminal, such that the customer terminal specifies the version of the resource [0015-0016], [0040], [0043]. Therefore, the customer terminal’s intent condition is the intent to request the resource or the specific version of the resource);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares in view of Xia in order to select hardware resources based on the hardware criteria;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the customer terminal to accurately and rapidly obtain the required resources over a network to improve work efficiency of resource acquisition [Xia: 0058];
Additionally, Xia discloses customer terminal obtains resource ID of the required resource and address information of resource storage where the required resource is stored [301 of Fig. 3], [0038];
However, Tabares-Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration information comprises an address of an edge device associated with the hardware resource;
Lee discloses wherein the configuration information comprises an address of an edge device associated with the hardware resource (edge data configuration information transmitted by the edge data network configuration server to the UE includes edge computing enabler server address [0134-0149], [0196-0197], [Fig. 4], [Fig. 6]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares-Xia in view of Lee in order to receive configuration information comprises an address of an edge device associated with the resource;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable a user equipment to connect to an edge server for service [Lee: 0134].
With respect to claim 22: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tabares discloses wherein the processor is further configured to send a fourth message using the data session, wherein the fourth message comprises data for the selected hardware resource (client sends a message to the broker resource for the resource based on the resource information [0022], [0044-0045], [0047-0049], [Fig. 1], [Fig. 6]).
With respect to claim 23: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tabares discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a fifth message, wherein the fifth message indicates a third network node associated with the selected hardware resource (establishing a connection between at least a first broker resource and the client device while the broker server is unavailable [0049]. However, it is generic and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat or apply and use a known technique (e.g. sending multiple messages) in order to yield predictable results. In this case, Tabares provides a system capable of providing many messages beyond 4 messages to a plurality of server resources for the selected hardware resource.
Furthermore, Xia also discloses if one resource storage does not have the requested resource, then the customer terminal will receive a new resource list indicating a new path information to request from another resource storage that may have the requested resource. Therefore, multiple message may be received dependent on which resource storage contain the requested resource.
With respect to claim 24: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 23 as set forth above.
However, Tabares-Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein the third network node is an edge configuration server;
Lee discloses wherein the third network node is an edge configuration server (an edge configuration server provided to a user equipment for authentication [0264]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares-Xia in view of Lee in order to have an edge configuration server;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the configuration of a user equipment to include triggering conditions [Lee: 0266].
With respect to claim 25: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tabares discloses wherein the configuration information indicates at least one of a configuration identification, a reference to an access token, a reference to a broker object, a handle associated with a time stamp counter, a flags register, a reference to a buffer, an access to a call, an access to a fault code, or an access to an operation (information about the broker resource includes transaction block identifiers [0043], and transaction data includes instructions how to establish a connection, resource identifiers, user identifiers, authorization durations [0031]).
With respect to claim 26: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tabares discloses wherein the request indicates a user intent, and wherein the user intent is mapped to the selected hardware resource (client device sends a request message to the broker servers for instructions on how to launch one of the broker resource identified in the list of resources [0022], [0042-0043], [0047]. User’s intent to access the selected broker resource).
With respect to claim 28: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
However, Tabares does not explicitly disclose wherein a location of the WTRU is associated with at least one of a geographical coordinate, a network location, a distance from the WTRU, a distance within a network, or a number of hops;
Xia discloses wherein a location of the WTRU is associated with at least one of a geographical coordinate, a network location, a distance from the WTRU, a distance within a network, or a number of hops (updating the path of the resource storage location, wherein the customer terminal may be a resource storage [0045]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares in view of Xia in order to wherein the location of the WTRU is associated with a network location;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the customer terminal to accurately and rapidly obtain the required resources over a network to improve work efficiency of resource acquisition [Xi: 0058].
With respect to claim 29: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
However, Tabares does not explicitly disclose wherein the respective hardware criterion is at least one of a quality of service associated with the application, a quality of service associated with the data session, a performance requirement for the hardware resource, a memory requirement for the hardware resource, or a context associated with the application;
Xia discloses wherein the respective hardware criterion is at least one of a quality of service associated with the application, a quality of service associated with the data session, a performance requirement for the hardware resource, a memory requirement for the hardware resource, or a context associated with the application (customer terminal requesting the particular version of the resource according to its configuration for best performance [0058]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares in view of Xia in order to have a hardware criterion of at least one of a quality of service associated with the application, a quality of service associated with the data session, a performance requirement for the hardware resource, a memory requirement for the hardware resource, or a context associated with the application;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the customer terminal to accurately and rapidly obtain the required resources over a network to improve work efficiency of resource acquisition [Xi: 0058].
With respect to claim 30: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tabares discloses wherein the hardware resource identifier is further selected based on a context associated with the application, and wherein the context is at least one of a number of hops between the WTRU and the first network node, a network condition, a processor utilization associated with the WTRU, a memory utilization associated with the WTRU, a number of players in a game, an image to be displayed, a color of a display background, a scenery, a number of objects available to a player, a viewing direction, a time of day, a location, or an audience rating (a time of day when the user is authorized to access a broker resource [0045]).
Additionally, Xia also discloses updating the resource path based on a location of the resource [0045].
With respect to claims 31-36 and 38-40, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 21-26 and 28-30, respectively. Therefore claims 31-36 and 38-40are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 21-26 and 28-30.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabares et al Pub. No.: (US 2020/0120039 A1) (hereinafter “Tabares”) in view of Xia et al Pub. No.: (US 2010/0235509 A1) (hereinafter "Xia”) and Lee et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0370330 A1) (hereinafter "Lee”) as applied to claims 21-26, 28-36 and 38-40 above, further in view of Foroughi et al Pub. No.: (US 2022/0182342 A1) (hereinafter "Foroughi”).
With respect to claim 41: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 21 as set forth above.
However, Tabares-Xia-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the user intent condition comprises a user intent vector;
Foroughi discloses wherein the user intent condition comprises a user intent vector (users inferred intentions are inputted in a vector [0047], [0050-0051]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares-Xia-Lee in view of Foroughi in order to have a user intent condition as a user intent vector;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide users with more relevant resources to improve efficiency [Foroughi: 0037].
With respect to claim 42: Tabares-Xia-Lee discloses the WTRU of claim 41 as set forth above.
However, Tabares-Xia-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the user intent vector is based on a inferred user intent;
Foroughi discloses wherein the user intent vector is based on a inferred user intent (users inferred intentions are inputted in a vector [0047], [0050-0051]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tabares-Xia-Lee in view of Foroughi in order to have the user intent vector based on a inferred user intent;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide users with more relevant resources to improve efficiency [Foroughi: 0037].
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached on (571)272-9617. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights