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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-3, Applicant argues the restriction, broadly asserting that the Office has not shown that groups I to III together would be a series burden. In support of this argument, Applicant asserts that the claims of the groups “all relate to provisioning and managing secure data communications” and thus the search parameters could be chosen “that incorporate subject matter from the claims of all Groups such that similar terms could be used to search the prior art.”
However, each of the claim groups presents a structure for a network (“a plurality of networked devices comprising…”) then proceeds to recite at least one processor configured to perform steps (See, for example, claims 1, 21, and 36. With regard to the secure communications, claims 1 and 21 both include secure communications, with the functions of claim 21 using and managing such secure communications, while claim 1 only broadly recites that the intended use of the connection is “for secure communications” in the portion of the claim that refers to the structure of the network. Claim 36 fails to recite any secure communication. Thus, Applicant’s argument is clearly spurious, as only claim 21 from the above performs any management of secure communications, and claim 36 does not even provide such secure communications.
For the two listed portions of the claim (structure and functions performed), neither of these sections are the same for any claim set. In the case of the structure, there is admittedly some overlap in the structure, but such structures refer to very broad and generic networks, with the structure of claim 1, for instance, merely requiring multiple network devices including broadcast devices that transmit some data that are connected (which is the case for networks) for secure communications with at least one processor. This recitation would cover most networks.
Meanwhile, for the second portion of the claim, the functions performed by the processor, there is almost no overlap between the claim groupings. Applicant has failed to provide any overlapping steps or functions between the different groups, but even a cursory review would show that the steps are vastly different, event to the point of reciting different components (e.g. claim 1 performs functions with regard to clusters, claim 21 performs different functions with regard to a primary and secondary node, and claim 36 performs another set of different functions with regard to at least one network device and a new network device). These different claim sets can be seen in Figures 12-14 of the instant specification, with each figure corresponding to a different claim set. As can be seen in the figures, there is no substantial overlap between the different functions. Further, reviewing the dependent claims, there is almost no overlap in any of the dependent claims between the different claim sets. Thus, while a single search could feasibly be performed to arrive at similar references for the three different broad structures of the claim sets, each of the performed methods would require a completely different search with no useful search feasibly being able to be performed that would address all three methods at the same time. Further, each of the dependent claims would potentially require additional searching, with the instant application, as originally filed, having 47 unique dependent claims depending from one of three of the 6 independent claims (17 unique dependent claims for group I, 15 unique dependent claims for group II, and 15 unique dependent claims for group III).
While the restriction requirement did not go into this level of detail, it presented the existence of the three different functionalities shown in three different figures and separate disclosures in the instant specification of the three different groups, where Applicant failed to address the differences in the claim sets that were presented, which while potentially operating in the same environment, would serve completely different functions within the environment (See Restriction Requirement mailed 10/16/2025, Paragraph 2).
As Applicant’s arguments do not actually address the claimed invention (e.g. claim group III does not even refer to secure communications), and only broadly asserts that a similar search could be provided to the broad concept that is not part of the functions performed by any but group II (as this is the only claim grouping that performs functions with regard to secure communications), the arguments cannot be deemed persuasive. Thus, claim group I (Claims 1-20) is examined in accordance with Applicant’s election.
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 1-18 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.
With regard to claim 1, the instant claim is directed towards a system comprising a plurality of network devices “being dynamically connected for secure communications with at least one processor,” then proceeds with “the at least one processor being configured to:”. The limiting effect of the remainder of the instant claim is unclear, as the processor is not recited as being part of the system. For purposes of prosecution, it is assumed that the at least one processor is part of the system. Claims 2-18 set forth additional details with regard to the processor and functions of the processor, and are rejected for the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 6-10, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0126840 (Venkataramu).
With regard to claim 1, Venkataramu discloses a computer-implemented system for a multipurpose control and networking platform, the system comprising: a plurality of networked devices comprising broadcasting devices, the broadcasting devices transmitting at least one of audio signals, video signals, or data signals, the plurality of networked devices being dynamically connected for secure communications with at least one processor (Venkataramu: Figures 1 and 4, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0046] and [0027]. The network can include many different types of utility, where the network would at least transmit “data signals,” where only one item from the list of three options is required to teach the instant claim as a whole. As a note, the presence of “broadcasting devices” does not appear to have any functional impact on the remainder of the instant claim (for example, the broadcast devices are not referred to in any of the steps performed by the processor), and appears to only refer to an intended use of the devices. Finally, Venkataramu broadly provides for secure communications, where the recitation of “secure communications” appears to only provide an intended use of the dynamic connection of the network devices.); the at least one processor being configured to:
configure at least one of a service solution or a feature (Venkataramu: Abstract and Figure 4 and Paragraph [0072]. An application is received and service instances are prepared for deployment. The instant claim refers to “service solution or a feature,” where only one of the two options is required to teach the instant claim, as a whole. Though the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms provides significant overlap, Venkataramu is being relied upon to disclose the claimed “feature.”);
deploy, among the plurality of networked devices, at least one of the service solution or the feature using one or more standalone local clusters for the plurality of networked devices (Venkataramu: Abstract and Figure 4, 415 and Paragraphs [0072] to [0074]. The application instance is deployed to at least one MEC cluster.); and
monitor and control the deployment of the at least one of the service solution or the feature (Venkataramu: Paragraphs [0072] to [0074]. The orchestrator controls the deployment, including to which nodes the application instance is to be deployed to based on parameters of the application policy for a requested geographic area, and then maintains a dynamic view of the network environment.).
With regard to claim 2, Venkataramu discloses wherein the deployment by the at least one processor among the plurality of networked devices or the monitoring and controlling of the deployment is technologically agnostic as to the type or capabilities of each networked device (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0033]. Venkataramu may utilize container engines in the nodes along with other virtualization technologies, where such a container would provide increased portability by providing the runtime environment for the functionality allowing such to be executed on different nodes regardless of the specific type. As a note, the claim presents “type” and “capabilities” in the alternative, where the “type” is relied upon. Even so, the term “capabilities” does not present what constitutes such capabilities, where capabilities to run specific applications (such as due to the presence of different OS functionalities and libraries) would be within the scope of such capabilities.).
With regard to claim 3, Venkataramu discloses wherein the service solution comprises at least one of a software-enabled networking solution, a centralized production, a cloud production, and a live production (Venkataramu: Abstract. First, the instant claim is rendered optional, as it relies on “service solution,” which is not relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, where the instant claim provides no requirement for the configuration and deployment of the service solution. Second, Venkataramu at least discloses a “software-enabled networking solution,” as the application is a form of software, and is being deployed in the network.).
With regard to claim 4, Venkataramu discloses that the feature comprises at least one of a device configuration, a device control, an IP routing, system and network monitoring, a rules-based audio and video alignment, a resource schedule, resource share, network and device security, scaling, workflow automation, user management, cloud production functionality, a device utilization scheme, an audio streaming system, a video streaming system, a media synchronization system, a metadata collection system, an asset tagging system, a media distribution system, and a metadata distribution system (Venkataramu: Abstract and Paragraphs [0027] to [0028]. An application or service is being deployed, which would at least configure a device to perform the functions of the application/service, and thus be a device configuration. The use of the language “at least one of” only requires one item from the listing of elements to be disclosed by the prior art to disclose the instant claim, as a whole.).
With regard to claim 6, Venkataramu discloses wherein monitoring and controlling the deployment includes assigning endpoints from a resource pool based on one or more productions and segregating the endpoints based on the one or more productions (Venkataramu: Paragraphs [0072] to [0074]. Venkataramu can select different clusters to send the application instance to based on the capabilities of the clusters. Lacking detail of how the endpoints are segregated or what constitutes a production, the terms must be afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation. The nodes of the clusters are at least segregated for at least deployment, while “productions” would refer to the functionalities of the nodes (The term “production” is used in a very broad manner in the instant specification, such as referring to “cloud production” in paragraph [045], production trucks in paragraph [047], media related production in paragraph [050], etc.), such as the ability to support parameters.).
With regard to claim 7, Venkataramu discloses that the one or more productions are live productions (Venkataramu: Paragraphs [0072] to [0074]. The clusters are live clusters, and the parameters are their current parameters. It is noted that the term “live” is used in different ways in the instant specification, including to refer to “live connections” in paragraph [061].).
With regard to claim 8, Venkataramu discloses the at least one processor being further configured to automate, based on a schedule, routing paths of the at least one of the service solution or the feature between the plurality of networked devices and the endpoints from the resource pool (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0083]. The orchestrator, as part of the continued monitoring, manages service assignments for the requests for the different clusters (which were taken from the options of nodes to deploy to, and thus would be from the resource pool).).
With regard to claim 9, Venkataramu discloses that the one or more standalone local clusters are configured to operate in an absence of connectivity to a cloud-based component (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0111]. For servicing requests, a cloud instance can be used or a MEC cluster, where the MEC cluster is an alternative to the cloud instance, and thus would not require connectivity to at least that cloud application instance.).
With regard to claim 10, Venkataramu disclose wherein the broadcasting devices and networking devices are a combination of on-site devices and remote devices (Venkataramu: Paragraphs [0072] to [0074]. Lacking detail of what the devices are remote from or what site the devices are on (e.g. is on-site the same as the processor or another node?). In the case of Venkataramu, cloud and non-cloud devices can be used in combination.).
With regard to claim 14, Venkataramu discloses controlling comprises scaling containers within the one or more standalone local clusters based on detected changes associated with the plurality of networked devices or the at least one of the service solution or the feature (Venkataramu: Paragraphs [0083] and [0033]. Changes can be made to the deployment, where at least removing an application instance or allocating an application instance would serve to scale the containers of the cluster.).
With regard to claim 15, Venkataramu discloses that the one or more standalone local clusters enable at least one of starting, pausing, restarting, or shutting down the at least part of the one of the service solution or the feature without disrupting the configuration of the at least one of the service solution or the feature (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0072] to [0074]. The instant claim language only requires one of the listed actions to teach the instant claim, as a whole, and provides a very broad recitation of the functionality. The application instance can be deployed and thus started at the standalone cluster, where such would not disrupt the configuration of the deployed instance, itself.).
With regard to claim 16, Venkataramu discloses that the plurality of networked devices further includes one or more networking devices for connecting the broadcasting devices to a broadcast controller (Venkataramu: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0027]. The devices are connected to each other, where lacking detail of what constitutes a broadcasting device or a broadcasting controller, or how they are related to any of the recited claim functionalities, any node providing any broadcast like functionalities would constitute a broadcast node, and at least the network infrastructure that allows for the forwarding of the nodes, such as routers or a wireless station, would constitute a controller of some form as it controls the actual communication to the nodes.).
With regard to claim 18, Venkataramu discloses that the broadcast controller further connects the broadcasting device to multiple recipient devices simultaneously (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0027] and Figure 1. The nodes are connected simultaneously via any infrastructure components as they are networked together.).
With regard to claims 19-20, the instant claims are similar to claim 1, and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 11-13is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramu.
With regard to claim 5, Venkataramu fails to disclose expressly, but does teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to provide configuration data and control data over at least one application programming interface (API) (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0050]. Venkataramu teaches the use of APIs for servicing different nodes was well-known, where applying this teaching to the interfaces between the orchestrator and the clusters would provide the subject matter of the instant claim.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize APIs for the interfaces between the orchestrator node and the nodes of the MECs to realize the well-known benefits of such APIs, such as scalability, improved efficiency, improved connectivity, etc.
With regard to claim 10, Venkataramu fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by on of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate a visualization via a user interface, the visualization indicating statuses or parameters associated with the plurality of networked devices (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the display of collected network information, such as that of Venkataramu (Venkataramu: Paragraph [0074]) to a user using some visualization via a user interface (e.g. GUI) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide some visualization via a user interface to display some statuses or parameters associated with the network devices to allow a human, such as an administrator, to view the current status of the network, thus allowing the human to determine if the network is operating properly.
With regard to claim 12, Venkataramu fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that monitoring and controlling the deployment comprises receiving data from a cloud-based cluster and transmitting the received data to the one or more standalone local clusters (More specifically, the use of cloud-based clusters, such as for the functionalities associated with the orchestrator or as a source of the application and parameters, was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (where it is noted that the role of the cloud-based cluster other than being a source of some data to be sent to a standalone local cluster is not claimed).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a cloud-based cluster for management functions, such as being a source of commands to perform on the local clusters or a source of the application/updates for the local clusters to allow such solutions to benefit from such cloud-based solutions, such as improved scalability, reliability, etc.
With regard to claim 12, Venkataramu fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that monitoring and controlling the deployment comprises receiving data from the one or more standalone clusters and transmitting the received data to a cloud-based cluster (More specifically, the use of cloud-based clusters, such as for the functionalities associated with the orchestrator, was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (where it is noted that the role of the cloud-based cluster other than being a destination of some data to be received from a standalone local cluster is not claimed).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a cloud-based cluster for management functions, such as being a destination for the monitored data (e.g. for storage purposes or to perform functions based on the data, such as determining whether an action needs to be taken) to allow such solutions to benefit from such cloud-based solutions, such as improved scalability, reliability, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444