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 . This action is in response to the communication filed on 12/12/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-17 and 21-24 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The applicant has claimed “and/or” one or more times throughout the claims.
The examiner is taking the position that in the case of “element A and/or element B” that the “and/or” covers embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken together. The phrase “and/or” is not inherently indefinite and therefore is not objected to or rejected as indefinite.
When construing the claims in the context of a possible anticipation or obviousness rejection, the examiner’s disclosure of any one item from the claimed list will provide sufficient teaching of the entire limitation. In Medline, for example, the PTAB stated that “and/or” is a “disjunctive alternative,” and the prior art showing one of the elements so joined renders the claim unpatentable (See, Medline Indus. Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, Case No. IPR2013-00173, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-17 and 21-24 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Specifically, the arguments present that Calvert fails to provide for the amended language, where the rejection below now relies on Fuh to teach this subject matter.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the second set of modules” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, “the second set of modules” will read as “a second set of modules.”
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 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 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.
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, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), and in further view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh).
For Claim 1, Goenka teaches a method comprising:
instantiating a local instance of a network management platform on an edge device (Goenka, FIG. 1, FIG. 4, ¶ 0066 “… core cloud server 112 and edge cloud server 114 are configured to provide a cloud hosted device instance service for user devices (e.g., mobile devices 102-104, client device 101, etc.) registered with the service … the edge cloud server 114 is a component of (and be located at) a cellular base station (or cell site) of a mobile (e.g., cellular) network with which a registered user device is communicating …”; ¶ 0067 “… The edge cloud server 114 can provide compute and memory resources to the cell tower. The edge cloud server 114 can host a local device instance (also referred to herein as a ‘lightweight’ device instance) providing localized cloud computing capability to a user device …”; ¶ 0094 “… At block 406, core cloud server 304A identifies an edge cloud server (e.g., edge cloud server 308A in the example), and transmits the token and an instruction instructing the edge cloud server 308A to create a local device instance associated with the token …”; see disclosure corresponding to FIG. 4 for instance instantiation), wherein:
the edge device is directly connected to a local network and is also directly connected to a wide area network (Goenka, FIG. 1 exemplifies an edge cloud server connecting to a wireless network 110 (e.g. LAN) and a WAN 105); and
the local instance of the network management platform maintains a first instance of network management data, the network management data describing at least one local device connected to the local network (Goenka, FIG. 1, ¶ 0067 “… The edge cloud server 114 can host a local device instance (also referred to herein as a ‘lightweight’ device instance) providing localized cloud computing capability to a user device …”; ¶ 0069 “… a device instance (e.g., a local device instance or a persistent core device instance) can be a virtual machine or a virtual container that provides compute and memory resources to a user device (e.g., mobile device 102, 103 or 104) configured to interact with the device instance …”) …;
instantiating a remote instance (Goenka, ¶ 0066 persistent core device instance) of the network management platform on a remote server directly connected to the wide area network and not directly connected to the local network, wherein the remote instance of the network management platform maintains a second instance of the network management data (Goenka, FIG. 1 exemplifies a core cloud server connecting to a WAN 105, FIG. 4, ¶ 0066 “… Generally, the core cloud server 112 manages user device data and persistent core device instances for registered user devices, performs tasks, facilitates handoffs between edge cloud servers 114, etc. …”; ¶ 0093 “… At block 404, core cloud server 304A generates a unique identifier (or token) associated with the user and user device 314 and creates a persistent core device instance for the user and associated with the unique identifier …”);
modifying, by the local instance of the network management platform, the first instance of the network management data in response to a command issued to the local instance of the network management platform (Goenka, FIG. 1, ¶ 0067 “… the local device instance can receive user input via the user device (e.g., touchscreen input of the user at the user device), process the user input and transmit rendering instructions to the user device causing the user device to update the user device's display …”);
providing, by the edge device and to the remote server via the wide area network, an indication of at least one modification made to the first instance of the network management data in response to the command (Goenka, FIG. 1, ¶ 0068 “… a local device instance maintained (or hosted) by the edge cloud server 114 can be synchronized with a corresponding persistent core device instance maintained by the core cloud server 112. By way of one non-limiting example, the edge cloud server 112 transmits device instance updates to the core cloud server 112, or vice versa, as needed …”); and
modifying, by the remote instance of the network management platform, the second instance of the network management data in response to the indication of the at least one modification provided by the edge device (Goenka, FIG. 1, ¶ 0068 “… the edge cloud server 112 transmits device instance updates to the core cloud server 112, or vice versa, as needed. The core cloud server 112 can update a persistent core device instance using the update(s) received from the edge cloud server 114, or vice versa …”).
Goenka does not explicitly teach, but Aoki teaches the network management data comprising at least one of: network hierarchies within the local network; physical location of the local device; identity of the local device; power distribution of hardware within the local network; hardware configuration of the local device; virtual machine identifiers; and virtual route forwarding (VRF) configurations of the local network (Aoki teaches the local management target device comprises device data such as a device identifier, FIG. 1, FIG. 7, ¶ 0099 “… The device 500 (management target device) which is a monitoring target (management target) of the remote device management apparatus 10 transmits a model name indicating a type of the device 500, a serial number which is a device identifier (ID) of the device 500, a device identifier for identifying the device 500, status information indicating the status of the device 500, and management target information indicating whether the remote device management apparatus 10 manages the device 500 …”).
Goenka and Aoki are analogous art because they are both related to computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the communicating the local device information techniques of Aoki with the system of Goenka to obtain local device information from a remote device management system (Aoki ¶ 0003).
Goenka-Aoki does not explicitly teach, but Fuh teaches wherein the command as issued to the local instance of the network management platform is directed to be issued to the remote instance of the network management platform and modifying the first instance of the network management data comprises:
receiving, by the edge device (Fuh exemplifies a firewall router 210 in FIG. 4), a request to the remote server (Fuh exemplifies a target server 222 in FIG. 4), the request comprising the command (Fuh teaches the firewall router receiving a HTTP request for accessing resources on the target server, the target server may need to perform the authentication and authorization operation in order to fulfill the request; FIGS 2-4; col. 7, ll. 42-66 “… In this configuration, the firewall provides an authentication and authorization mechanism that substitutes for an authentication and authorization mechanism elsewhere in the network. Accordingly, the mechanism described in this document is referred to as an ‘Authentication Proxy’ …”; col. 10, ll. 12-24 “… User 302 uses browser 304 to send an HTTP request from client 306 for an electronic document, application or resource available at target server 222. User 302 is not authenticated in intranet 216. The HTTP request travels along path 401 from client 306 to firewall router 210 …”);
blocking, by the edge device, the request to the remote server; and issuing, by the edge device, the command to the local instance (Fuh teaches the Authentication Proxy 400 in FIG. 4) of the network management platform on the edge device (Fuh teaches that the Authentication Proxy performs the authentication and authorization operation using local caches in the firewall router instead of passing the operation to the target server; FIGS 2-4, 7A, 7B; col. 10, ll. 25-48 “… when the HTTP request arrives at the external interface 420 of the firewall router 210, Authentication Proxy 400 examines packets of the request. In block 706, the process determines whether a source IP address of the request is found in the standard access control list … If the test of block 706 is affirmative, then control passes to block 708 in which the authentication caches are searched for the source IP address. In block 710, the process tests whether the source IP address is found. For example, if Authentication Proxy 400 determines that the source IP address matches at least one IP address stored in the filtering mechanism 219, then the Authentication Proxy 400 attempts to authenticate the user 302. In the preferred embodiment, Authentication Proxy 400 searches authentication caches 432, 434 for the source IP address. The goal of this search is to determine if the source IP address of the HTTP packet corresponds to an entry in any of the authentication caches 432,434 …”; col. 10, ll. 49-60 “… Assume that the filtering mechanism 219 contains a source IP address that matches the IP address of client 306, so that the test of block 706 is affirmative. However, User 302 is not yet authenticated, so that the test of block 710 is negative. Thus, the authentication caches have no hashed entries that match the source IP address found in the header field of the HTTP packet. As a result, without further action the firewall router 210 will intercept and will not forward the HTTP packet … In one embodiment, at this stage, control is passed to block 720 of FIG. 7B …”).
Fuh and Goenka-Aoki are analogous art because they are both related to computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Authentication Proxy in a firewall router techniques of Fuh with the system of Goenka-Aoki to facilitate integrity and access control mechanisms to guard against unwanted network traffic or access by unauthorized users on the Internet (Fuh, col. 1, ll. 20-30).
For Claim 6, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the edge device is configured to forward data received from the at least one local device to the wide area network, and wherein the edge device is further configured to forward data received from the wide area network to the at least one local device (Goenka, FIG. 1, ¶ 0067 “… the local device instance can receive user input via the user device (e.g., touchscreen input of the user at the user device), process the user input and transmit rendering instructions to the user device causing the user device to update the user device's display. In some cases, the edge cloud server 114 forwards a task to the core cloud server 112 to perform …”; ¶ 0068 “… the edge cloud server 112 transmits device instance updates to the core cloud server 112, or vice versa, as needed. The core cloud server 112 can update a persistent core device instance using the update(s) received from the edge cloud server 114, or vice versa …”).
For Claim 8, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the command comprises receiving the command from a device connected to the local area network (Goenka, FIG. 1 exemplifies the user device connecting to the LAN 110, ¶ 0067 “… the local device instance can receive user input via the user device (e.g., touchscreen input of the user at the user device), process the user input and transmit rendering instructions to the user device causing the user device to update the user device's display …”).
For Claim 12, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
instantiating the local instance of the network management platform comprises instantiating a first set of modules of the network management platform (Goenka, FIG. 4, ¶ 0094 “… At block 406, core cloud server 304A identifies an edge cloud server (e.g., edge cloud server 308A in the example), and transmits the token and an instruction instructing the edge cloud server 308A to create a local device instance associated with the token …”; ¶ 0164 “… a module is a software, hardware, or firmware (or combinations thereof) system, process or functionality, or component thereof, that performs or facilitates the processes, features, and/or functions described herein …”),
instantiating the remote instance of the network management platform on the remote server comprises instantiating a second set of modules of the network management platform (Goenka, FIG. 4, ¶ 0093 “… At block 404, core cloud server 304A generates a unique identifier (or token) associated with the user and user device 314 and creates a persistent core device instance for the user and associated with the unique identifier …”), and
the first set of modules and the second set of modules are not identical (Goenka teaches that the local device instance may be provisioned with less functionality/resources than the persistent core device instance, FIG. 1, FIG. 4, ¶ 0067 “… In some cases, the edge cloud server 114 forwards a task to the core cloud server 112 to perform. By way of a non-limiting example, a task forwarded to the core cloud server 112 may need compute and/or memory resources not available at the edge cloud server 114 …”).
For Claim 13, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 12, wherein: the second set of modules includes all modules of the first set of modules, and the first set of modules does not include all modules of the second set of modules (Goenka teaches that the local device instance may be provisioned with less functionality/resources than the persistent core device instance, FIG. 1, FIG. 4, ¶ 0067 “… In some cases, the edge cloud server 114 forwards a task to the core cloud server 112 to perform. By way of a non-limiting example, a task forwarded to the core cloud server 112 may need compute and/or memory resources not available at the edge cloud server 114 …”).
For Claim 14, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing the indication of the at least one modification comprises providing a record of changes to the first instance of the network management data (Goenka, ¶ 0017 “… the local device instance and the corresponding persistent core device instance can be synchronized such that the persistent core device instance reflects the current state of the local device instance. For example, the edge cloud server transmits a synchronization request (or instruction) to the core cloud server in response to any changes to data being used by the local device instance …”).
For Claim 16, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing the indication of the at least one modification comprises providing a copy of the first instance of the network management data to the remote server (Goenka, FIG. 1, ¶ 0068 “… a local device instance maintained (or hosted) by the edge cloud server 114 can be synchronized with a corresponding persistent core device instance maintained by the core cloud server 112. By way of one non-limiting example, the edge cloud server 112 transmits device instance updates to the core cloud server 112, or vice versa, as needed …”).
For Claim 22, the claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above. Additionally, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches a synchronization module of the remote instance of the network management platform and such that the second instance of the network management data is synchronized with the first instance of the network management data (Goenka teaches modules to fulfil the synchronization process; FIG. 1, FIG. 11; ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0158).
For Claim 23, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a second set of modules includes at least one of a billing module, a sales module, an inventorying module (Goenka teaches inventory management support; ¶ 0064 “… For example, a process of buying or selling online advertisements may involve a number of different entities, including advertisers, publishers, agencies, networks, or developers. To simplify this process, organization systems called ‘ad exchanges’ may associate advertisers or publishers, such as via a platform to facilitate buying or selling of online advertisement inventory from multiple ad networks. ‘Ad networks’ refers to aggregation of ad space supply from publishers, such as for provision en masse to advertisers …”), and/or a troubleshooting module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), in view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh), and in further view of Bose et al. (US 20230388309 A1, filed 05/27/2022; hereinafter Bose).
For Claim 2, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Bose teaches wherein modifying the first instance of the network management data comprises configuring a new device connected to the local area network, the new device connected to the wide area network through the edge device (Bose teaches that a trusted device corresponding to an edge computing network stores data pertaining to new devices accessing computing resources in the edge computing network, FIG. 7, ¶ 0100 “… Operation 707 illustrates storing, by the trusted device, data pertaining to the new devices that attempted to access computing resources in the edge computing network and that were not authorized to access the computing resources in the edge computing network …”; ¶ 0102 “… sending, by the trusted device to the computing service provider, the stored data pertaining to the new devices that attempted to access computing resources in the edge computing network and that were not authorized to access the computing resources in the edge computing network …”).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh and Bose are analogous art because they are both related to cloud computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the edge computing network techniques of Bose with the system of Goenka-Aoki-Fuh to benefit from localization of computing and storage devices to more effectively meet data residency, compliance, latency and other requirements (Bose ¶ 0025).
For Claim 3, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Bose teaches wherein modifying the first instance of the network management data comprises modifying an existing configuration of an existing device connected to the local area network and connected to the wide area network through the edge device (Bose teaches updating local configuration data in the edge computing network, FIG. 2, ¶ 0054 “… The local orchestrator 234 and/or autonomous mode agent 230 may further be configured to allow for new deployments while the edge site is disconnected. For example, deployment of new functions or updates to existing functions may be orchestrated by local orchestrator 234 while the edge site 220 is operating in autonomous mode …”), the modification changing at least one of: a specified physical location of the local device; an identity of the local device; power distribution of affecting the local device; and hardware configuration of the local device (Bose teaches modifying hardware configuration of local devices when the edge site is in autonomous mode; FIG. 6, ¶ 0089 “… When entering autonomous mode, a local cache of the certificate and/or active directly information may be used for local authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) operations. Over time, the edge site may start to lose the initial state of trust as the edge will be unable to renew/refresh the trust data. In response, some functionality at the edge site may be locked down … The trusted device or system 627 may disable (and by extension network access) to any ports that are connected to unauthorized devices. For example, trusted device or system 627 may execute containers that enforce access control at each port of the trusted network device at the trusted device or system 627 …”). See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 5, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Bose teaches wherein providing the indication comprises:
detecting, by the edge device, an interruption in a connection between the edge device and the wide area network (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0097 “… Operation 703 illustrates in response to receiving a first indication of a disconnection or degradation of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network, initiating, by the edge computing network, an autonomous mode at the edge computing network. In an embodiment, the autonomous mode enables the edge computing network to continue providing computing and network services at the edge computing network during the disconnection or degradation of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network …”);
storing, by the edge device, a copy of the indication to at least one memory of the edge device in response to detecting the interruption (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0100 “… Operation 707 illustrates storing, by the trusted device, data pertaining to the new devices that attempted to access computing resources in the edge computing network and that were not authorized to access the computing resources in the edge computing network …”);
detecting, by the edge device, that the connection is restored (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0101 “… Operation 709 illustrates receiving a second indication of a reconnection or restoration of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network …”); and
providing the stored copy of the indication to the remote server in response to detecting that the connection is restored (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0102 “… Operation 711 illustrates in response to receiving the second indication of the reconnection or restoration of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network, sending, by the trusted device to the computing service provider, the stored data pertaining to the new devices that attempted to access computing resources in the edge computing network and that were not authorized to access the computing resources in the edge computing network …”). See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 9, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Bose teaches wherein blocking the request comprises: detecting, by the edge device, an interruption in a connection between the edge device and the wide area network; and blocking the request to the remote server in response to detecting the interruption (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0097 “… Operation 703 illustrates in response to receiving a first indication of a disconnection or degradation of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network, initiating, by the edge computing network, an autonomous mode at the edge computing network. In an embodiment, the autonomous mode enables the edge computing network to continue providing computing and network services at the edge computing network during the disconnection or degradation of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network …”). See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 10, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh-Bose teaches the method of claim 9, wherein providing the indication to the remote server comprises: detecting that the connection between the edge device and the wide area network is restored (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0101 “… Operation 709 illustrates receiving a second indication of a reconnection or restoration of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network …”); and
providing the indication in response to detecting that the connection is restored (Bose, FIG. 7, ¶ 0102 “… Operation 711 illustrates in response to receiving the second indication of the reconnection or restoration of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network, sending, by the trusted device to the computing service provider, the stored data pertaining to the new devices that attempted to access computing resources in the edge computing network and that were not authorized to access the computing resources in the edge computing network …”). See motivation to combine for claim 2.
For Claim 17, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Bose teaches wherein providing the indication of the at least one modification comprises determining, before providing the indication, that the indication should be provided to the remote server based on a connectivity characteristic of the remote server (Bose teaches that the communication connection status between the edge computing network and the cloud computing service provider determines whether or not the edge computing network could update data to the cloud computing service provider, FIG. 7, ¶ 0097 “… Operation 703 illustrates in response to receiving a first indication of a disconnection or degradation of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network, initiating, by the edge computing network, an autonomous mode at the edge computing network. In an embodiment, the autonomous mode enables the edge computing network to continue providing computing and network services at the edge computing network during the disconnection or degradation of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network …”; ¶ 0102 “… Operation 711 illustrates in response to receiving the second indication of the reconnection or restoration of communications between the computing service provider and the edge computing network, sending, by the trusted device to the computing service provider, the stored data pertaining to the new devices that attempted to access computing resources in the edge computing network and that were not authorized to access the computing resources in the edge computing network …”), wherein the connectivity characteristic is an operational status of a connection between the edge device and the wide area network (Bose, FIG. 2A, FIG. 5B, ¶ 0049 “… The functionality provided at the data center 200 and edge site 220 allow for the edge site 220 to operate as a disconnected or autonomous edge site and continue providing services to users serviced by the edge site 220 …”; ¶ 0085 “… FIG. 5B illustrates an example computing environment illustrating integration of computing resources that include an edge site 520 that is geographically proximate to a facility local to users 500 …”). See motivation to combine for claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), in view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh), and in further view of Rafee et al. (US 20230095514 A1, published 03/30/2023; hereinafter Rafee).
For Claim 4, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Rafee teaches wherein providing the indication comprises providing the indication at a pre-determined time (Rafee teaches synchronizing data from edge nodes to cloud node in predetermined time period, FIG. 1, FIG. 2, ¶ 0040 “… FIG. 2 is a block diagram that illustrates a process of synchronizing and reconciling data stream from the edge node to the cloud node in real-time of FIG. 1 according to some embodiments herein. The plurality of data from the plurality of edge nodes 102A-N is synchronized with the cloud node 112 using a network 108 …”; ¶ 0042 “… when the synchronization table is not synchronized then the data from the plurality of edge nodes 102A-N is synchronized in the next cycle. A cycle is a time period computed to synchronize the data and may be pre-determined by the user …”).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh and Rafee are analogous art because they are both related to cloud computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the periodic data synchronization techniques of Rafee with the system of Goenka-Aoki-Fuh to make sure the data on the cloud is up to date (Rafee ¶ 0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), in view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh), and in further view of Beasley (US 20040193462 A1, published 09/30/2004; hereinafter Beasley).
For Claim 11, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Beasley teaches wherein the network management platform is a data infrastructure management platform (Beasley, ¶ 0088 “… Often information maintained within the IMS (i.e. Infrastructure Management system) is also maintained in other software systems. For instance, network system management platforms keep track of system events, providing alerts on device faults. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and customer relationship management (CRM) systems keep track of people and customers. While there can be overlap in information maintained in these systems, myinvention does not depend on the infrastructure management system being the central data repository …”).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh and Beasley are analogous art because they are both related to network management systems.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the network management techniques of Beasley with the system of Goenka-Aoki-Fuh to facilitate the infrastructure system as an inexpensive, simple and accurate system (Beasley ¶ 0003).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), in view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh), and in further view of Arai et al. (US 20120016838 A1, published 01/19/2012; hereinafter Arai).
For Claim 15, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Arai teaches wherein: the network management data comprises a plurality of data files (Arai, ¶ 0014 “… A remote file server managing a remote storage device and a local file server managing a local storage device are coupled to a communication network (e.g. the Internet) …”),
modifying the first instance of the network management data comprises modifying at least one data file of the plurality of data files of the first instance without modifying a remainder of data files of the plurality of data files of the first instance (Arai teaches identifying files to be synchronized from the Edge to the Core, FIG. 2, FIG. 6, FIG. 8, ¶ 0085 “… The data synchronization necessity flag 3101 (metadata synchronization necessity flag 3102) indicates whether the file (metadata) must be synchronized or not … the data synchronization necessity flag 3101 (metadata synchronization necessity flag 3102) is, if the target file (the metadata of the same) is updated on the Edge 100 side and is not consistent with the target file (the meta data of the same) on the Core 200 side any more (that is, if the files (metadata) are not synchronous any more), as both of the files (both of the metadata) must be consistent with each other, set to ’ON’ …”), and
providing the indication of the at least one modification comprises providing the modified at least one data file of the plurality of data files (Arai, FIG. 2, FIG. 6, FIG. 8, ¶ 0103 “… That the data/ metadata synchronization necessity flag 3101/3102 is ‘ON’ indicates that the synchronization processing for the file or the meta data of the same corresponding to the same is necessary. If the synchronization processing is performed, the data/metadata synchronization necessity flag 3101/3102 is set to ‘OFF’ …).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh and Arai are analogous art because they are both related to cloud computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the data file synchronization techniques of Arai with the system of Goenka-Aoki-Fuh to improve the performance of utilizing and accessing the remote storage systems (Arai ¶ 0013).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), in view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh), and in further view of Geffin et al. (US 20130238795 A1, published 09/12/2013; hereinafter Geffin).
For Claim 21, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 1. Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Geffin teaches wherein the network management data comprises network configuration data for a data center infrastructure management (DCIM) platform (Geffin, FIG. 4A, ¶ 0142 “… The DCIM Operations Manager module 24 combines real-world information with managing the data center infrastructure configuration. It provides interfaces to measure performance and utilization across the data center infrastructure and to reveal current available headroom in racks such that the appropriate placement of equipment can be achieved. The DCIM Operations Manager Module 24 may connect to real time data feeds (for power and temperature) from the MSS service to compare and validate the performance guidelines and design criteria established in the Configuration Manager module 30 capabilities …”).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh and Geffin are analogous art because they are both related to computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the data center infrastructure management techniques of Geffin with the system of Goenka-Aoki-Fuh to facilitate the decision-making process by providing accurate and real-time data center information to the system administrators in a useful and meaningful way (Geffin ¶ 0005).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka et al. (US 20220007437 A1, published 01/06/2022; hereinafter Goenka), in view of Aoki (US 20200137166 A1, published 04/30/2020; hereinafter Aoki), in view of Fuh et al. (US 6463474 B1, published 10/08/2002; hereinafter Fuh), and in further view of Guo (US 9552481 B1, published 01/24/2017; hereinafter Guo).
For Claim 24, Goenka-Aoki-Fuh teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the edge device further comprises … and synchronization module … (Goenka teaches modules to fulfil the synchronization process; FIG. 1, FIG. 11; ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0158).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh does not explicitly teach, but Guo teaches an inspection module … of which at least one is configured to run separately from the local instance and invoke programs and functionality of the local instance (Guo teaches that a monitoring program runs separately from a program and invokes functionality of the program via API calls; FIGS 1-3; col. 5, ll. 30-48 “… FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of an exemplary computer-implemented method 300 for monitoring programs. The steps shown in FIG. 3 may be performed by any suitable computer-executable code and/or computing system … As illustrated in FIG. 3, at step 302, one or more of the systems described herein may place a program within an enclave that includes a protected address space that code outside of the protected address space is restricted from accessing. For example, placement module 104 may, as part of server 206 in FIG. 2, place program 210 within enclave 212 that includes a protected address space that code 216 outside of the protected address space is restricted from accessing …”; col. 6, ll. 13-19 “… At step 304, one or more of the systems described herein may hook an application programming interface call within the program in the enclave to monitor the behavior of the program. For example, hooking module 106 may, as part of server 206 in FIG. 2, hook application programming interface call 213 within program 210 in enclave 212 to monitor the behavior of the program … ”; col. 7, l. 63 – col. 8, l. 12“… at step 308, one or more of the systems described herein may monitor the behavior of the program by executing the program within the enclave in an attempt to force the program to use the hooked application programming interface call in order to access data outside the enclave …”).
Goenka-Aoki-Fuh and Guo are analogous art because they are both related to computing networks.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the program monitoring techniques of Guo with the system of Goenka-Aoki-Fuh to facilitate the protection of computing resources from attackers and malicious software (Guo, col. 1, ll. 6-18).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. Kruglick (US 20150106463 A1) teaches that technologies are provided for locally processing queue requests from co-located workers. In some examples, information about the usage of remote datacenter queues by co-located workers may be used to determine one or more matched queues. Messages from local workers to a remote datacenter queue classified as a matched queue may be stored locally. Subsequently, local workers that request messages from matched queues may be provided with the locally-stored messages (Abstract).
ii. Kisel et al. (US 20150373139 A1) teaches that A content request is sent (31) from a client ( 4) and the network routes (321) it to origin server (301) and mirrors (322) it to a transparent cache server (103). The transparent cache server (103) takes a decision on whether to deliver the content or not. If the transparent cache server (103) decides to deliver the content (33), it takes over the content delivery session setup between the client (4) and the origin server (301), impersonating and then disconnecting or triggering disconnection of the origin server (301). If the transparent cache server (103) is not delivering the content, due to cache failure, because the decision of the transparent cache server (103) is not to perform the delivery or because, being the decision of the transparent cache server (103) to deliver the content, the origin server (301) is still being connected, the content delivery session continues (34) between the origin server (301) and the client (4) (Abstract).
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 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 ZONGHUA DU whose telephone number is (408)918-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM PST.
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 on (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.
/Z.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights