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 action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/20/25.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, to claims 8-20 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
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) 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Htay (US 2018/0165110) in view of Law (US 2011/0054643).
Per Claim 1:
Htay teaches:
- obtaining, by a processing device, an update to a first unikernel; creating, from the update, a second unikernel; receiving input to the second unikernel to verify functionality of the second unikernel; and transferring application state from the first unikernel to the second unikernel ([0006] In an exemplary embodiment, a workloads management method for on-demand applications in distributed Network Functions Virtualization Infrastructure (dNFVI) includes receiving usage data from a unikernel implementing one or more functions of a plurality of functions related to a Virtual Network Function (VNF); determining an update to the one or more functions in the unikernel based on the usage data; updating the unikernel by requesting generation of application code for the unikernel based on the update; and starting the updated unikernel and redirecting service requests thereto. The workloads management method can further include receiving a service request for a function not included in the updated unikernel; and implementing a second unikernel for the function not included in the updated unikernel. [0080] Once the newly specialized RA images (that is one RA image with discovery and the other with provision/perfmgmt) are downloaded locally, the workloads manager 50 can optimize the resource utilization on the host. FIG. 22 illustrates a block diagram of the workloads manager 50 load balancing service requests across the three RAs 200A, 200B, 200C with specialized RA images (unikernels). The deployment can be tuned by the workloads manager 50 during the periods when more of the discovery requests are made. This can also be performed similarly for more provision requests. [0081] A novel aspect of the systems and methods is that depending on the feature usage pattern at each deployment, the workloads manager 50 can specialize the RA to meet the demand. For example, if the perfmgmt feature is not used, the workloads manager 50 can decide to specialize the RA into three different images. One with discovery, another with the provision and the third with perfmgmt. That is, the relevant functionalities can be fine-tuned, deployed on demand (just in time) with lightweight unikernels.). Htay does not explicitly teach a simulated sensor input.
However, Law teaches a simulated sensor input (par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Htay to include a simulated sensor input using the teaching of Law. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to manage testing of a control system (Law, par. 0001).
Per Claim 3:
Htay teaches:
- wherein obtaining the update further comprises probing a remote system (par. 0044).
Per Claim 4:
Htay teaches:
- wherein the remote system is a centralized server, the centralized server comprising a registry of unikernel releases (par. 0004 and 0044-0045).
Per Claim 5:
Htay teaches:
- wherein the remote system is a decentralized mesh, the decentralized mesh comprising a set of one-hop networking devices (e.g. see Fig. 4 and par. 0043-0044).
Per Claim 6:
Htay teaches:
- further comprising terminating the first unikernel (par. 0006).
Per Claim 7:
Htay teaches:
- wherein the update is authenticated before creating the second unikernel (par. 0047-0048).
Per Claims 8 & 10-14:
These are system versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 1 and 3-7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Htay.
Per Claims 15 & 17-20:
These are medium versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 1 and 3-6, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Htay.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Htay (US 2018/0165110) in view of Law (US 2011/0054643), and further in view of Chang (US 2022/0100859).
Per Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Htay does not explicitly teach wherein the processing device is an Internet of Things (IoT) device. However, Chang teaches wherein the processing device is an Internet of Things (IoT) device (par. 0009 and par. 0020-0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Htay to include wherein the processing device is an Internet of Things (IoT) device using the teaching of Chang. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to efficiently and securely manage multiple IoT devices in a Cloud-based device management platforms (Chang, par. 0004).
Per Claim 9:
This is a system version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 2, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Per Claim 16:
This is a medium version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 2, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ayoub (US 2020/0151335) teaches a method for updating firmware for IoT devices.
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 QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199