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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, on the whole, in light of the amendments. Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made. Certain aspects of Applicant’s arguments may remain relevant to the new grounds of rejection, and these aspects are addressed below.
In response to the argument that Luo’s network connectivity and credential sharing are at odds with the claim, and to the extent that this argument remains relevant to the new grounds of rejection, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims explicitly require the sharing of “network connectivity resources,” and do not prohibit credentials from being among the compute resources shared.
In response to the argument that Luo describes “HTTP-based communication for device commissioning and authentication, not compute resource orchestration,” the Examiner respectfully submits that Luo describes resource orchestration at least by sharing credentials, certificates, connectivity to network 106, etc., among devices in a local “internal” network: see [0022], [0026]-[0029], [0034]-[0039], and note that paragraphs [0034]-[0039] describe the use of HTTP for “protocol exchanges with local devices,” not merely commissioning and authentication.
In response to the argument that Luo does not teach a subnetwork because it teaches “simple hub-and-spoke links” as opposed to a “peer-to-peer subnetwork,” and to the extent that this argument remains relevant to the new grounds of rejection, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims neither prohibit hub-and-spoke links nor require a peer-to-peer subnetwork. Moreover, Luo explicitly contemplates peer-to-peer connections among the devices (see, e.g., [0036] and [0048]).
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 1-21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “handling…communication…with one or more neighboring devices in a network,” but then refers to “orchestrating…dynamic sharing…with the neighboring devices in the subnetwork” (emphasis added). The claim then goes on to refer to “the handling of communication and the orchestrating of dynamic sharing within the subnetwork.” The claim is ambiguous as to whether these recitations are intended to refer to a single network, a single subnetwork, or a distinct network and subnetwork. Claim 30 recites similar limitations and is similarly deficient.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096).
Regarding claim 1, Luo shows a method of wireless communication of a device, comprising:
handling, by a distributed device cloud function (DDCF) of the device, communication for the device with one or more neighboring devices in a network via underlying access technologies (i.e., by a collection of software and circuitry, performing communication with local devices including devices 104-0 to 104-n: see [0026] and [0029]); and
orchestrating, by a device compute orchestrator (DCO) of the device, dynamic sharing of compute resources and network connectivity resources of the device with the neighboring devices in the [or a] subnetwork (i.e., by a collection of software and circuitry, sharing credentials, certificates, connectivity to network 106, etc., among devices in a local “internal” network: see [0022], [0026]-[0029], [0034]-[0039]),
wherein the DCO is placed above a transport layer of the device (including by exchanging information via HTTP: see [0036]-[0039]).
Luo does not explicitly show:
wherein the orchestrating comprises the device borrowing compute resources from at least one of the one or more neighboring devices; and
wherein the DDCF and the DCO are operable to enable the handling of communication and the orchestrating of dynamic sharing within the subnetwork regardless of whether the device is connected to an overlay network.
Eruchimovitch shows:
wherein orchestrating comprises a device borrowing compute resources from at least one of the one or more neighboring devices (i.e., where a device selects a nearby node to perform an application task, effectively “borrowing” the resources necessary to perform the task, including processor resources, from that node: see [0010], [0027]-[0028], and [0033]); and
wherein elements of the device are operable to enable handling of communication and orchestrating of dynamic sharing within a subnetwork regardless of whether the device is connected to an overlay network (i.e., where a node such as a root, router, or other node can coordinate with other nodes in a personal area network 120 regardless of whether it is a node that connects to a remote server node over network connection 112, including by having another node perform a task and/or make a connection on its behalf: see [0029]-[0030] and [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Eruchimovitch in order to conserve resources such as processing power (see Eruchimovitch, [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the device is a subscribed user device subscribed to a network operator (e.g., in an embodiment where the gateway device has an associated account that permits subscription to status updates: see Luo, [0022], [0073], [0078]), and the method further comprises: allowing dynamic sharing of compute resources and network connectivity resources of one or more network devices of the overlay network with unsubscribed neighboring devices through the subscribed user device connected to the overlay network (see Luo, [0022], [0027]-[0029], [0034]-[0039]), wherein the DDCF is configured as a part of an extended service based architecture (SBA) (where the services include services provided over HTTP: see [0036]-[0039], [0090], [0106]) and managed by the network operator (including where an operator device validates the firmware of the gateway device, manages certificates, etc: see Luo, [0084]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and further shows forwarding, by the DDCF, capabilities information from the network operator to one of the neighboring devices in a subnetwork that is not directly connected to the overlay network (the information including at least an indication that a connection is ready and a certificate from the gateway server, which is “capabilities information” at least because it facilitates the capability of establishing a secure connection: see Luo, Fig. 10B and [0107]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 4, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and further shows wherein the dynamic sharing of the compute resources run across devices in a subnetwork, a hyperlocal cloud, an edge cloud and a core cloud of the network (see Luo, Fig. 8, [0071]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and further shows receiving, from the network operator, an instruction to instantiate or reconfigure the DDCF (including an instruction to instantiate the gateway device as a component of the system by issuing a firmware validity challenge and installing a certificate if successful: see Luo, [0084]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the device is an unsubscribed user device not subscribed to a network operator, and the unsubscribed user device is connected to the overlay network through a subscribed device in a subnetwork (e.g., where the gateway device is not previously registered to an account, registering the device through a user device: see Luo, [0095]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 7, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 6 as applied above and further shows receiving, by the DDCF, capabilities information of one or more network devices from the subscribed device (the information including at least a device ID and a certificate, which is “capabilities information” at least because it facilitates the capability of establishing a secure connection: see Luo, Fig. 9B and [0084]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 22, Luo as combined above further shows a method of wireless communication of a device, comprising:
providing a distributed device cloud function (DDCF), wherein the DDCF is configured to handle communication for the device with one or more neighboring devices in a network via underlying access technologies (i.e., the collection of software and circuitry that performs communication with local devices including devices 104-0 to 104-n: see [0026] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 30, Luo shows an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a device (e.g., a device including at least gateway 102: see Fig. 1A and [0026]), comprising:
a memory (at least inherently disclosed as a necessary component of a computer-implemented system); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (at least inherently disclosed as a necessary component of a computer-implemented system) and configured to:
handle, by a distributed device cloud function (DDCF) of the device, communication for the device with one or more neighboring devices in a network via underlying access technologies (i.e., by a collection of software and circuitry, performing communication with local devices including devices 104-0 to 104-n: see [0026] and [0029]); and
orchestrate, by a device compute orchestrator (DCO) of the device, dynamic sharing of compute resources and network connectivity resources of the device with the neighboring devices in the [or a] subnetwork (i.e., by a collection of software and circuitry, sharing credentials, certificates, connectivity to network 106, etc., among devices in a local “internal” network: see [0022], [0026]-[0029], [0034]-[0039]),
wherein the DCO is placed above a transport layer of the device (including by exchanging information via HTTP: see [0036]-[0039]).
Luo does not explicitly show:
wherein the orchestrating comprises the device borrowing compute resources from at least one of the one or more neighboring devices; and
wherein the DDCF and the DCO are operable to enable the handling of communication and the orchestrating of dynamic sharing within the subnetwork regardless of whether the device is connected to an overlay network.
Eruchimovitch shows:
wherein orchestrating comprises a device borrowing compute resources from at least one of the one or more neighboring devices (i.e., where a device selects a nearby node to perform an application task, effectively “borrowing” the resources necessary to perform the task, including processor resources, from that node: see [0010], [0027]-[0028], and [0033]); and
wherein elements of the device are operable to enable handling of communication and orchestrating of dynamic sharing within a subnetwork regardless of whether the device is connected to an overlay network (i.e., where a node such as a root, router, or other node can coordinate with other nodes in a personal area network 120 regardless of whether it is a node that connects to a remote server node over network connection 112, including by having another node perform a task and/or make a connection on its behalf: see [0029]-[0030] and [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Eruchimovitch in order to conserve resources such as processing power (see Eruchimovitch, [0010]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096), and further in view of Kimn (US Pub. No. 2021/0126897).
Regarding claim 8, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the device is a user device or a network device (see Luo, Fig. 1A and [0026]), but does not explicitly show that the DDCF includes a device cloud frame switching/forwarding table storing information of devices in a subnetwork.
Kimn shows a control function including a device cloud frame switching/forwarding table storing information of devices in a subnetwork (see Fig. 9, [0031], [0039], [0081]-[0085], and [0094]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Kimn in order to improve network performance (see Kimn, [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 8 as applied above and further shows wherein the information of each device in the subnetwork includes: a device identifier (ID) of each device (e.g., a MAC address), a device network address of each device (e.g., an IPv4 address), an output radio access technology (RAT) port (interface information), and a next hop user device ID or a next hop network device ID to reach a destination device (e.g., an IPv6 address). See Kimn, Fig. 9, [0031], [0039], [0081]-[0085], and [0094]-[0098], as combined above.
Regarding claim 10, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 8 as applied above and further shows transmitting, by the DDCF, a DDCF message to a destination device, wherein the DDCF is configured to identify, from the devices in the subnetwork, the destination device with a device Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) and the media access control (MAC) address according to the information stored in the device cloud frame switching/forwarding table (see Kimn, Fig. 9, [0030]-[0031], [0039], [0081]-[0085], and [0094]-[0098], as combined above).
Regarding claim 11, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 8 as applied above and further shows wherein communication between the user device or the network device and one of the devices in the subnetwork is a device-to-device (D2D) communication or is a communication forwarded by an access point (AP) or a base station (see Kimn, [0030]-[0031], [0039], [0081]-[0085], and [0094]-[0098], as combined above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096), and further in view of Masputra (US Pub. No. 2010/0267368).
Regarding claim 12, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly show wherein the DDCF is configured to function as a control plane/management module for device cloud network operation, and as a protocol layer generating device cloud packets and encapsulating or decapsulating the packets passing through the DDCF.
Masputra shows a function configured to function as a control plane/management module for device cloud network operation, and as a protocol layer generating device cloud packets and encapsulating or decapsulating the packets passing through the function (see [0033] and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Masputra in order to allow both the local devices and the proxying device to use the same network services (see Masputra, [0005]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096), and further in view of Dyck (WO 2005/034411).
Regarding claim 13, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly show wherein the DDCF is placed below a network layer.
Dyck shows where a control function is placed below a network layer (see [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Dyck in order to optimally maintain network connectivity.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096) and Dyck (WO 2005/034411), and further in view of Masputra (US Pub. No. 2010/0267368).
Regarding claim 14, the combination shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above but does not explicitly show wherein the DDCF is configured to generate a DDCF message by: receiving a network packet from the network layer, and encapsulating the network packet to form the DDCF message; or generating the DDCF message without receiving the network packet, wherein the DDCF message is intended to end at the DDCF at the destination device.
Masputra shows wherein the DDCF is configured to generate a DDCF message by: receiving a network packet from the network layer, and encapsulating the network packet to form the DDCF message (see [0017], [0033], [0046]); or generating the DDCF message without receiving the network packet, wherein the DDCF message is intended to end at the DDCF at the destination device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Masputra in order to allow both the local devices and the proxying device to use the same network services while maintaining access across connectivity changes (see Masputra, [0005], [0049]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above but does not explicitly show all of wherein the device is a user device, local area network (LAN) connectivity between the user device and the neighboring devices is supported, and the DDCF is placed above a data link layer, network connectivity between the user device and the neighboring devices is supported, and communication between the DDCF of the user device and the neighboring devices does not involve the network layer.
Masputra shows wherein the device is a user device, local area network (LAN) connectivity between the user device and the neighboring devices is supported, and the DDCF is placed above a data link layer (see [0018]-[0021]), network connectivity between the user device and the neighboring devices is supported (see [0017]), and communication between the DDCF of the user device and the neighboring devices does not involve the network layer (e.g., where communication is via USB: see [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Masputra in order to allow both the local devices and the proxying device to use the same network services while maintaining access across connectivity changes (see Masputra, [0005], [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above and further shows receiving, by the DDCF, a packet from one of the neighboring device; determining, by the DDCF, whether the packet received is a network packet or a device cloud packet; in response to determining the packet received to be the device cloud packet, processing, by the DDCF, the device cloud packet (see Luo, [0081]), but does not explicitly show in response to determining the packet received to be the network packet, allowing the network packet to transparently pass through the DDCF and reach an upper layer.
Masputra shows receiving, by the DDCF, a packet from one of the neighboring device (see [0021]); determining, by the DDCF, whether the packet received is a network packet or a device cloud packet (necessary in order to determine whether the packet should be forwarded toward the cellular network); in response to determining the packet received to be the network packet, allowing the network packet to transparently pass through the DDCF and reach an upper layer (i.e., as part of forwarding the packet to a remote network: see [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Masputra in order to allow both the local devices and the proxying device to use the same network services while maintaining access across connectivity changes (see Masputra, [0005], [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination shows the limitations of claim 16 as applied above and further shows applying a dynamic binding between the upper layer and the DDCF to indicate the destination layer of the packet (see Masputra, [0040]-[0045], as combined above); or configuring a fixed transport layer port number for the DDCF to indicate the destination layer; or using an indicator in a header of the packet to indicate the destination layer.
Regarding claim 18, the combination shows the limitations of claim 16 as applied above and further shows wherein the DDCF determines whether the packet received is a network packet or a device cloud packet using a Protocol Version field in the packet (at least implicitly disclosed, as it is necessary to parse the protocol version field in an IP packet in order to process it).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096), and further in view of Mir (WO 2010/008819).
Regarding claim 19, Luo as combined above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein network connectivity between the device and the neighboring devices is supported (see Luo, [0022], [0027]-[0029], [0034]-[0039]), but does not explicitly show wherein the DDCF is placed above a network layer.
Mir shows where a control function is placed above a network layer (see [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Mir in order to permit offloading of certain network functionality so as to achieve high data rates without incurring expense at a main processor.
Regarding claim 20, Luo shows the limitations of claim 19 as applied above and further shows wherein the DDCF message is encapsulated in a network packet (see Mir [0055]), and the DDCF is further configured to identify a destination layer of the DDCF message with a transport layer port number (see Mir, [0040]-[0041], as combined above).
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US Pub. No. 2019/0281455) in view of Eruchimovitch (US Pub. No. 2010/0115096), and further in view of Bajic (WO 2010/008819).
Regarding claim 21, Luo as combined above above further shows wherein the DDCF is placed above a data link layer (see [0026] and [0029]), but does not explicitly show wherein the device is without a network layer.
Bajic shows wherein a device is without a network layer (see [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Luo with the teachings of Bajic in order to conserve resources that otherwise would have been consumed during performance of network layer functionality.
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 Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445