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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8,10-12,14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument regard to 112(d) rejection of claim 15. Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer instructions stored there on and when executed by a processor to perform the method of claim 14. Examiner assumes claim 15 is depended on independent claim 14. However, claim 15 is as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depended. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a distributed network information providing unit for providing distributed network information… an information storing unit for storing… a configuration unit for configuring the distributed network… in claim 1. Similar cited units above also being claim in claims 2-8,10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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 1-8,10-12, 14-15 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 selected proxy network devices…” in line 23-24 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes the above limitation as “the selected one or more network devices…”.
The dependent claims 2-8,10-12 are depended on the rejected base claim 1, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
As regarding claims 14-15, limitations of claims 14-15 are similar to limitation of rejected claim 1 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium… perform method of claim 1, however claim 14 is a method, not a non-transitory computer readable medium. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1,3-8, 10-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (us 2017/0302669) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Gunnarsson et al (us 2021/0044479) (hereinafter Gunnarsson) and Muthusamy et al (us 2022/0141658) (hereinafter Muth) and further in view of Popa et al (us 2013/02942840) (hereinafter Popa).
As regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a plurality of distributed network devices, to enable the distributed network to work together with an ephemeral gateway device, the distributed network having a plurality of network devices (see Chen figure.1c, plurality of devices in the network such as iot device, network device, mobile device…) wherein the ephemeral gateway device is adapted to act as a gateway within the distributed network when the ephemeral gateway device is present in the distributed network, wherein the distributed network configuration device comprises (see Chen 0008-0009, 0011 mobile device acts as gateway when it’s near the iot device/s):
a network information providing unit for providing distributed network information indicative of characteristics of the distributed network, wherein the distributed network information comprises (i) device information indicative of characteristics and/or location of at least one of the distributed network devices and/or (ii) access information to the distributed network (see Chen 0051-0052, prior to sending offer information to mobile devices, management device creates and sends to IoT device the device the device specific key and session tickets).
an information storing unit for storing the network information configured to allow the ephemeral gateway device can access the network information for the purpose of performing its task as a gateway for the distributed network (see Chen 0054, 0065, management device generates and stores session tickets which will give to the mobile device so the mobile device can authenticate itself with the IoT device when the mobile device is near the IoT device in order to act as a gateway for the Iot device),
a configuration unit for communicating information to the IoT device, while the ephemeral gateway device is absent from the distributed network (see Chen 0051-0052,0054 prior to sending offer information to mobile devices to act as a gateway, management device creates and sends to IoT device the device the device specific key and session tickets), based on the network information configured to allow the ephemeral gateway device can act as a gateway when present in the distributed network, the distributed network is configured as if the ephemeral gateway device were present in the distributed network by preparing one or more of the distributed network devices of the plurality of distributed network devices to allow contact of the ephemeral gateway device and/or by configuring a security measure of the distributed network to allow an ephemeral gateway device is allowed to join the distributed network (see Chen 0015-0015, management device sends session ticket to mobile device, the mobile device transmits received mobile ticket to IoT, then IoT device authenticates the mobile device so the IoT acts as the gateway to the IoT device, the mobile device then configure to receive data from IoT and relay to the distributed network (see Chen 0066)).
Chen is silent in regard to the concept of configuring the distributed network.
Gunn teaches the concept of configuring the distributed network (see Gunnarsson 0050, deploy plurality of IoT devices establish and define communication path among devices (i.e. configure distributed network).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gunnarsson with Chen because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Chen with Gunnarsson’s teaching for the purpose of enable better resource utilization and improve distributed network performance.
The combination of Chen-Gunnarsson is silent in regard to the concept of wherein the configuration unit being adapted to configure the distributed network to allow one or more network devices of the plurality of network devices to be selected to act as proxy when the ephemeral gateway device joins the distributed network, the ephemeral gateway device configured to joins the distributed network via one of the selected proxy network devices of the plurality of network devices.
Muth teaches the concept of wherein the configuration unit being adapted to configure the distributed network to allow one or more network devices of the plurality of network devices to be selected to act as proxy when the ephemeral gateway device joins the distributed network, the ephemeral gateway device configured to joins the distributed network via one of the selected proxy network devices of the plurality of network devices (see Muth 0016, 0023, 0027-0029 device acts as proxy for other devices enter the distributed network; Muth teaches the mobile device can be select to act as the router to device when for IOT device (i.e ephemeral gateway) join the distributed network. The next time the IOT device (i.e. ephemeral gateway) want to join the distributed network, another device such as the router can act as the router to connect the IOT device to the distributed network. The mobile device or the router can act as router for the IOT device to join the distributed network).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Muth with Chen-Gunnarsson because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Chen-Gunnarsson with Muth’s teaching for the purpose of providing security, privacy and distributed network control.
The combination of Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth is silent in regard to the concept of the selected proxy network devices of the plurality of network devices being pre-configured to enable the ephemeral gateway device to loin the distributed network without performing network discovery.
Popa teaches the concept of proxy network devices of the plurality of network devices being pre-configured to enable the ephemeral gateway device to loin the distributed network without performing network discovery (see Popa 0042, requesting device request to join the network without discovering any device in the network, the one or more network devices in the network process the request and establish a connection with the requesting device).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Popa with Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth with Popa’s teaching for the purpose of simplify the network joining process for the requesting device.
As regarding claim 3, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses information storing unit is adapted to store at least distributed network information that is different from the data necessary for the ephemeral gateway device to access the distributed network on at least one distributed network device of the distributed network (see Chen 0052, management device generates device specific key for the IoT device (i.e. information different from the data…), it is obvious to either temporarily/or permanently store the device specific key before transmit to the IoT device for later access).
As regarding claim 4, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses the information storing unit is adapted to store the distributed network information by distributing the distributed network information to different distributed network devices, of the plurality of distributed network devices, based on the distributed network information (see Chen 0052, management device generates device specific key for the IoT device (i.e. information different from the data…), it is obvious to either temporarily/or permanently store the device specific key before transmit to the IoT device for later access, also see Chen fig.2, multiple IoT devices, therefore it is obvious to repeat the steps for multiple IoT devices depend on the desired implementation).
As regarding claim 5, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses configure a reporting functionality of the distributed network such that the distributed network carries out the reporting functionality as if the ephemeral gateway device were present in the distributed network (see Chen 0066 the gateway can relay data from IoT to the distributed network, also see Gunnarsson 0060, teaches the concept of the IoT device/s can also act as a gateway for other IoT device/s). the same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 5.
As regarding claim 6, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses configuring the reporting functionality such that reporting messages to the ephemeral gateway device are sent less frequently and/or with a different time pattern of the messages when the ephemeral gateway device is not present in the distributed network than when the ephemeral gateway device is present in the distributed network (see Chen, 0048, data transmission schedule associated with the IoT device, also see Chen 0066, the mobile device acts as gateway and configure to receive data from IoT device/s and report to the distributed network. Since the IoT devices are resource constrained (limited computational, power and communication resources), therefore it is obvious that the reporting is less frequency than when the gateway is present in the distributed network to save resources for the IoT devices).
As regarding claim 7, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses the configuration of the reporting functionality as if the ephemeral gateway device were present in the distributed network comprises configuring the reporting functionality such that reporting messages to the ephemeral gateway device are stored when the ephemeral gateway device is not present in the distributed network such that the stored reporting messages are provided to the ephemeral gateway device when joining the distributed network (see Chen, 0048, data transmission schedule associated with the IoT device, also see Chen 0066, the mobile device acts as gateway and configure to receive data from IoT device/s and report to the distributed network. Since the IoT devices are resource constrained (limited computational, power and communication resources), therefore it is obvious that the report is stored when gateway is not present).
As regarding claim 8, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses tasks carried out by one or more of the distributed network devices, of the plurality of distributed network devices, related to the management of the joining and remembering of the ephemeral gateway device are distributed between the distributed network devices based on the distributed network information (see Chen 0053-0055, the IoT device store session keys send from management device and use this information to authenticate/verify the mobile device before the mobile device acts as a gateway for the IoT device).
As regarding claim 10, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses the configuration unit is adapted to configure the distributed network such that an addressing information of the distributed network is stored and maintained by the selected proxy distributed network devices such that the addressing information map of the distributed network can be made available to the ephemeral gateway device when the ephemeral gateway device joins the distributed network (see Chen 0051-0055, the IoT device store session keys send from management device and use this information to authenticate/verify the mobile device before the mobile device acts as a gateway for the IoT device, also see Muth for the concept of device can act as proxy for another device to enter the distributed network). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 10.
As regarding claim 11, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses the distributed network using both an identity of the ephemeral gateway device and its own identity (see Muth 0028-0032, use identity of the device that wants to enter the distributed network and the identify of the application of the proxy). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 11.
As regarding claim 12, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses a security unit, wherein the security unit is adapted to configure the distributed network such that a security measure is in place for when the ephemeral gateway device wants to join the distributed network (see Chen 0051-0055, the IoT device store session keys send from management device and use this information to authenticate/verify the mobile device before the mobile device acts as a gateway for the IoT device).
As regarding claims 14-15, the limitations of rejected claims 14-15 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 1 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al (us 2017/0289901) (hereinafter Kim).
As regarding claim 2, Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, however Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa is silent in regard to the concept of the information storing unit
Kim teaches the concept of the information storing unit
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kim with Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Chen-Gunnarsson-Muth-Popa with Kim’s teaching for the purpose of improved security, accessibility and scalability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights