DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 December 2025 was considered by the examiner. It is noted that Applicant accidentally only submitted two pages of the European Patent Office communication of 29 October 2025, when the annex to the communication was four pages in length.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Ponta failed to disclose (c) preparing the plurality of nodes in the secure environment for alternative execution of the primary data processing task in response to interruptions by decentralizing the system…; and (d) …concealment of the selection of the plurality of nodes prevents a sabotage of the alternative execution. Both of these phrases are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim in these limitations. As best interpreted, Ponta [0062] discloses “alternative execution” by configuring components in a distributed programming environment where tasks can be distributed between nodes.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 states “the plurality of nodes-stem from…” which appears to have an extraneous hyphen in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the nodes" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar issues exist in claims 5 and 9.
In claim 1, step (a) initializes in a secure environment in a first node of the network. Step (b) initializes in one or more secure environments, at least one second node. It is unclear if the secure environment in step (b) is the same or a different secure environment from the secure environment in step (a).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the primary data processing task" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 alternately uses “data processing tasks”, “tasks”, “a data processing task”, and “the data processing tasks”. It is unclear what is being referred to throughout the claim based on this switching of terminology.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “preparing the plurality of nodes in the secure environment for alternative execution of the primary data processing task in response to interruptions by decentralizing the system”. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim in this claim limitation. The claim is interpreted as best possible for purposes of compact prosecution as a distributed processing system.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “concealment of the selection of the plurality of nodes prevents a sabotage of the alternative execution”. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim in this claim limitation. It is further unclear from the claim and specification what Applicant intends by the terms “concealment” and “sabotage”. The claim is interpreted as best possible for purposes of compact prosecution.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the selection of the plurality of nodes" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, the nodes are selected in claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the expected values for the data transmission capacities or the signal propagation times" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar issues exist in claims 3, 4, and 11.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the data transmission capacities" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar issues exist in claims 3, 4, and 11.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the signal propagation times" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar issues exist in claims 3, 4, and 11.
The term “a low-discrepancy sequence change of expected values” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a low-discrepancy sequence change of expected values” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 refers to “between the first node and others…” It is unclear what is meant by “others”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ponta et al. (US 2017/0300701)
In regard to claim 1, as best interpreted Ponta disclosed a computer-implemented method for concealed distribution of data processing tasks to the nodes of a network implementing a data processing system, comprising a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a computer-readable medium, wherein when the instructions are executed on at least one processor, the at least one processor causes tasks to be performed, the data processing tasks comprising:
(a) initializing, in a secure environment in a first node of the network, a primary instance of a data processing task, configured such that the primary instance of the data processing task, uses a trusted environment key to prevent unauthorized access to the data processing tasks; Ponta [0050]
(b) initializing, in one or more secure environments, at least one second node to form a plurality of nodes configured such that at least one secondary instance of the data processing task uses the trusted environment key to have availability to the primary instance of the data processing task in case of failure of the first node; Ponta [0051] and
(c) preparing the plurality of nodes in the secure environment for alternative execution of the primary data processing task in response to interruptions by decentralizing the system configured such that the alternative execution comprises transferring control of tasks to a selection of the plurality of nodes; and, Ponta [0051], [0062]
(d) implementing concealment of the selection of the plurality of nodes configured such that the concealment of the selection of the plurality of nodes prevents a sabotage of the alternative execution. Ponta [0062]
In regard to claim 2, as best interpreted Ponta disclosed selecting implemented nodes after considering the expected values for the data transmission capacities and signal propagation times between the plurality of nodes. Ponta [0051]
In regard to claim 3, as best interpreted Ponta disclosed wherein the expected values for the data transmission capacities or the signal propagation times for the plurality of notes stem from a low discrepancy sequence change of expected values. Ponta [0051]
In regard to claim 4, as best interpreted Ponta disclosed wherein the expected values for the data transmission capacities or the signal propagation times between the first node and others are taken into consideration as criteria for the selection of the plurality of nodes. Ponta [0051]
In regard to claim 5, as best interpreted Ponta disclosed wherein the nodes of the network implementing the data processing system are designed without local redundancies. Ponta [0051]
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phegade et al. KR 20150107796 A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445