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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 12/10/2025.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 10, 15, and 20. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hesselink does not teach or suggest sending “a request to redeem at least a portion of the credit” where “the request comprises a commission for the third device to perform a second one or more tasks on behalf of the device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion be Hesselink discloses that Hesselink discloses that the DRM server 16 maintains a transaction database entry for each user so that the users can be compensated for the distribution of the media files. In the example of FIG. 2C, the DRM server 16 may update the transaction database to credit User 1 and User 2 for the purchase of the media file by User 3 (as well as credit the media source 14). When the third user device 18 (User 3) receives the DRM license to decode the third media file 23, the third user device 18 also receives a third encryption key 25 that can be used to encode the third media file 23 into a fourth media file for further distribution to other users) (see col. 4, lines 40 – 64).
Hesselink further discloses that Hesselink discloses that each individual user may be given further credit for “down stream” transactions as the file is propagated from first tier users to second tier users, to third tier users, and so on in a pyramid fashion; implies that the third user can also receive credit and commission as claimed)(see col. 4, line 65 through col. 5, line 15).
Applicant also argued that there is no “request to redeem” in Hesselink. In Hesselink, a server manages payments to various devices. However, there is no request to redeem anything in Hesselink, just a tracking of when payments are due to various devices.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion because Hasselink discloses that This embodiment reduces the transaction cost, for example, by debiting/crediting a user's credit card once a month rather than for each individual transaction. In some embodiments, the DRM server 16 may implement a token system wherein each user is required to purchase an initial number of tokens that may be used to purchase DRM licenses. When a DRM license transaction is originated by one of the users (via a referral), their account is credited with a corresponding token. Each account may then be periodically balanced, for example, by requiring a user to purchase more tokens if they are running low, or by redeeming excess tokens for a cash payment. (see col. 5, lines 29 – 48).
Thus, the Examiner contends that the prior art read on the claimed invention.
It appears that applicants are interpreting the claims very narrow without considering the broad teaching of the references used in the rejection. Applicants are reminded that the examiner is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicants always have the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
In view of such, the rejections are maintained and repeated as follows:
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 2 and 10 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis) in view of Hesselink et al (US 10,289,809; hereinafter Hesselink).
Regarding claim 1, Georgis discloses a device, comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0023]; Georgis discloses a central processing unit CPU)); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing non-transitory computer readable instructions configured to, upon execution by the processor (paragraph [0023]; Smith discloses a memory), cause the device to:
receive one or more resources as a credit in response to performing a first one or more tasks on behalf of a second device (paragraphs [0022], [0060]; Georgis discloses that the assigned contributed resources and a processing requirement of a task; tracking resource contribution based on completed task segments, wherein the completed task segments are distributed task segments derived from the task that have been processed by the assigned contributed resources; and crediting an account based on the tracked resource contribution.); and wherein the device performed the first one or more tasks to receive the one or more resources as the credit (paragraphs [0040], [0046], [0079]; Georgis discloses that a system generates 12 a model per category using the assigned resources for optimal distribution and computing of a task. Next, the system tracks 14 the assigned resources by monitoring their successful processing or storage contributions. Then, the system credits 16 a user account using a metric that quantifies the users successful resource contributions that were tracked 14).
Georgis discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose to send a request to redeem at least a portion of the credit to a third device different from the device and the second device, the request comprising a commission for the third device to perform a second one or more tasks on behalf of the device.
Hesselink, in an analogous art, discloses to send a request to redeem at least a portion of the credit to a third device different from the device and the second device (col. 4, lines 40 – 64; Hesselink discloses that the DRM server 16 maintains a transaction database entry for each user so that th e users can be compensated for the distribution of the media files. In the example of FIG. 2C, the DRM server 16 may update the transaction database to credit User 1 and User 2 for the purchase of the media file by User 3 (as well as credit the media source 14). When the third user device 18 (User 3) receives the DRM license to decode the third media file 23, the third user device 18 also receives a third encryption key 25 that can be used to encode the third media file 23 into a fourth media file for further distribution to other users), the request comprising a commission for the third device to perform a second one or more tasks on behalf of the device (col. 4, line 65 through col 5, line 15; Hesselink discloses that each individual user may be given further credit for “down stream” transactions as the file is propagated from first tier users to second tier users, to third tier users, and so on in a pyramid fashion; implies that the third user can also receive credit and commission as claimed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Georgis by sending a request to redeem at least a portion of the credit to a third device different from the device and the second device, the request comprising a commission for the third device to perform a second one or more tasks on behalf of the device as evidenced by Hesselink for the purpose of allowing content owners/users to be able to further increase the consumption of content by incentivizing users to share and recommend media files through a profit sharing or other reward system.
Regarding claim 2, Georgis and Hesselink disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the device to receive, in response to the request, data from the third device, the data related to a completion of the second one or more tasks by the third device (Hesselink: col. 4, line 65 through col 5, line 15). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Georgis discloses an apparatus for maintaining a ledger for a network of devices performing tasks on behalf of one another, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0023]; Georgis discloses a central processing unit CPU)); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing non-transitory computer readable instructions configured to, upon execution by the processor (paragraph [0023]; Smith discloses a memory), cause the apparatus to:
receive a first indication that a first device has performed a first one or more tasks on behalf of a second device (paragraphs [0022]; Georgis discloses that the assigned contributed resources and a processing requirement of a task; tracking resource contribution based on completed task segments, wherein the completed task segments are distributed task segments derived from the task that have been processed by the assigned contributed resources; and crediting an account based on the tracked resource contribution.);
update the ledger to indicate that the first device has been allocated one or more resources as a credit for performing the one or more tasks (paragraphs [0046 - 0048]; Georgis discloses that the system credits 16 a user account using a metric that quantifies the user's successful resource contributions that were tracked 14. That is, because a system tracks the completed jobs by a resource and because resources are allocated to a category prior to receiving a job from the system, the system may credit a user account).
Georgis discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose to receive, from a third device that is different from the first device and the second device, a second indication that a third device has performed a second one or more tasks on behalf of the first device as a redemption of the one or more resources.
Hesselink, in an analogous art, discloses to receive, from a third device that is different from the first device and the second device, a second indication that a third device has performed a second one or more tasks on behalf of the first device as a redemption of the one or more resources (col. 4, line 40 through col. 5, line 15; Hesselink discloses that the DRM server 16 maintains a transaction database entry for each user so that the users can be compensated for the distribution of the media files. In the example of FIG. 2C, the DRM server 16 may update the transaction database to credit User 1 and User 2 for the purchase of the media file by User 3 (as well as credit the media source 14). When the third user device 18 (User 3) receives the DRM license to decode the third media file 23, the third user device 18 also receives a third encryption key 25 that can be used to encode the third media file 23 into a fourth media file for further distribution to other users).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Georgis by receiving, from a third device that is different from the first device and the second device, a second indication that a third device has performed a second one or more tasks on behalf of the first device as a redemption of the one or more resources as evidenced by Hesselink for the purpose of allowing content owners/users to be able to further increase the consumption of content by incentivizing users to share and recommend media files through a profit sharing or other reward system.
Regarding claim 11, Georgis and Hesselink disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to update, in response to receiving the second indication, the ledger to indicate that at least a portion of the credit has been redeemed by the first device (paragraphs [0045 – 0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Georgis and Hesselink disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to send data indicative of the credit to the first device based on the first indication that the first device performed the first one or more tasks (paragraphs [0045 – 0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Georgis and Hesselink disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more resources are first one or more resources, the credit is a first credit, and wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to update, in response to receiving the second indication, the ledger to indicate that the third device has been allocated one or more second resources as a second credit for performing the one or more tasks (Hesselink: col. 4, line 40 through col. 5, line 15). Same motivation as in claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Georgis discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein credit is a first credit, and further wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to send data indicative of a second credit to the third device in response to receiving the second indication that the third device performed the second one or more tasks (Hesselink: col. 4, line 40 through col. 5, line 15). Same motivation as in claim 10.
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis) in view of Hesselink et al (US 10,289,809; hereinafter Hesselink), and further in view of Springer, SR. et al (US 2004/0260748; hereinafter Springer, SR.)
Regarding claim 3, Georgis and Hesselink disclose all the limitations in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose that the instructions further cause the device to determine, before performing the first one or more tasks, that the credit available for performing the first one or more tasks is above a predetermined threshold.
Springer, SR., in an analogous art, discloses that the instructions further cause the device to determine, before performing the first one or more tasks, that the credit available for performing the first one or more tasks is above a predetermined threshold (abstract; paragraphs [0019 – 0023]; Springer, SR. discloses that if the first count of credits is above a predetermined threshold the local processor may send a remote operation request of the first resource type from the third queue to the remote processor to be executed in connection with the first resource type of the remote processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Georgis and Hesselink by determine, before performing the first one or more tasks, that the credit available for performing the first one or more tasks is above a predetermined threshold as evidenced by Springer, SR. for the purpose of refraining a local cluster from requesting too many remote operations which could result in the capabilities of the remote cluster being executed; thereby limiting or throttling the requesting of remote operations on a remote cluster.
Regarding claim 4, Georgis, Hesselink, and Springer, SR. disclose the device of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the device to perform, in response to the determination that the credit is above the predetermined threshold, the first one or more tasks (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Georgis, Hesselink, and Springer, SR. disclose the device of claim 3, wherein while the credit is below the predetermined threshold, the device does not perform the first one or more tasks (paragraphs [0019 – 0023]; Springer, SR. discloses that if the first count of credits is below a predetermined threshold, the local processor may queue a remote operation request of the first resource type in a third queue of remote operation requests of the first resource type awaiting to be sent to the remote processor to be executed in connection with the first resource type of the remote processor). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Georgis, Hesselink, and Springer, SR. discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the device to determine, before sending the request to redeem the at least a portion of the credit, that an amount of the credit that will be debited based on the third device performing the second one or more tasks is below a predetermined threshold (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Georgis, Hesselink, and Springer, SR. discloses the device of claim 7, wherein the request to redeem the at least a portion of the credit is sent to the third device only if the amount of the credit that will be debited based on the third device performing the second one or more tasks is below the predetermined threshold Springer, SR. (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023], [1230]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Georgis; Hesselink, and Springer, SR. discloses the device of claim 7, wherein while the amount of the credit that will be debited based on the third device performing the second one or more tasks is above the predetermined threshold, the request to redeem the at least a portion of the credit is no sent to the third device (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023], [1230]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis) in view of Hesselink et al (US 10,289,809; hereinafter Hesselink), and further in view of Smith et al (US 2019/0349426; hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 6, Georgis and Hesselink disclose all the limitations in claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose that the instructions further cause the device to receive data indicative of a user consent to opt into a fog network participation prior to performing the one or more tasks.
Smith, in an analogous art, discloses that the instructions further cause the device to receive data indicative of a user consent to opt into a fog network participation prior to performing the one or more tasks (paragraphs [0853], [1324]; Smith discloses that an IoT device associated with the packaging of the product may join with a mesh network, or fog device, at a facility, such as a processing plant, upon delivery of the product to a loading dock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Georgis and Hesselink by causing the device to receive data indicative of a user consent to opt into a fog network participation prior to performing the one or more tasks as evidenced by Smith for the purpose of extending computation burden to a lot more computing devices in a safe and reliable manner.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis) in view of Edward A. Hubbard (US 2009/0171855; hereinafter Hubbard).
Regarding claim 15, Georgis discloses a device for utilizing a network of devices to perform tasks based on usage rates of the network, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0023]; Georgis discloses a central processing unit CPU)); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing non-transitory computer readable instructions configured to, upon execution by the processor (paragraph [0023]; Smith discloses a memory), cause the device to:
receive a credit in response to performing a first one or more tasks on behalf of a second device (paragraphs [0022], [0060]; Georgis discloses that the assigned contributed resources and a processing requirement of a task; tracking resource contribution based on completed task segments, wherein the completed task segments are distributed task segments derived from the task that have been processed by the assigned contributed resources; and crediting an account based on the tracked resource contribution); and
send a request for another device to perform a second one or more tasks on behalf of the device (paragraphs [0007], [0022], [0040]).
Georgis discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose that an amount of the credit debited to perform the second one or more tasks is dependent on a usage rate of the network of devices.
Hubbard, in an analogous art, discloses that an amount of the credit debited to perform the second one or more tasks is dependent on a usage rate of the network of devices (paragraphs [0047], [0122 – 0123]; Hubbard discloses that the following TABLE 2 provides a list of idleness vectors or factors that may be utilized in determining the level of device usage or idleness. In particular, TABLE 2 provides two primary categories of activities to monitor or analyze for determination of how idle a client system may or may not be. These activities are user activity and device activity. By monitoring, analyzing, and tracking these client system elements and activities over time, a better determination of device usage and idleness may be made).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Georgis by showing that an amount of the credit debited to perform the second one or more tasks is dependent on a usage rate of the network of devices as evidenced by Hubbard for the purpose of providing an incentive, which may be based in part upon capabilities of the distributed devices, to encourage users and owners of the distributed devices to allow the capabilities of the distributed devices to be utilized in the distributed parallel processing system.
Regarding claim 16, Georgis and Hubbard disclose the device of claim 16, wherein during a first period of time while the usage rate of the network devices is above a threshold, the amount of the credit debited to perform the second one or more tasks is a first amount of credit (Georgis: abstract; paragraphs [0022], [0080], [0105], [0108]; Georgis discloses that the system may contain a threshold availability for a component where the system may never use a component if its current use is more than a designated amount, such as 50%. If the threshold is met then the system may label that component as an unavailable resource. Thus, if a 50% threshold for the components in FIG. 8 is used then the physical memory is available while the CPU is unavailable).
Regarding claim 17, Georgis and Hubbard disclose the device of claim 16, wherein during a second period of time while the usage rate of the network devices is below the threshold, the amount of the credit debited to perform the second one or more tasks is a second amount of credit (Georgis: abstract; paragraphs [0022], [0080], [0105], [0108]).
Regarding claim 18, Georgis and Hubbard disclose the device of claim 17, wherein the first amount of credit is greater than the second amount of credit (Georgis: paragraphs [0022], [0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Georgis and Hubbard disclose the device of claim 18, wherein the instructions further cause the device to only send the request during the second period of time while the usage rate of the network of devices is below the threshold (Georgis: abstract; paragraphs [0022], [0080], [0105], [0108]).
Regarding claim 20, Georgis and Hubbard disclose the device of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the device to receive, in response to the request, data from the third device, the data related to a completion of the second one or more tasks by the third device (paragraphs [0047 - 0049]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457