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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed on 5/11/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are amended. Claims 3, 5, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are canceled. Claims 21-26 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/11/2026 with regards to claims 1, 11, and 16 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments allege that the newly added limitations are not taught by the prior art of record. It should be noted that the newly added limitation rendezvous system being configured to re-direct the endpoint devices of the deployment to one or more of the orchestrators of the deployment introduce new matter, and therefore, is rejected under 112(a) as outlined below.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether re-directing endpoint devices to a plurality of orchestrators is referring to an embodiment of 1) redirecting endpoint devices to a single orchestrator within a deployment 130 (Fig. 1A), where the system has a plurality of deployments (and thus a plurality of orchestrators); 2) redirecting endpoint devices of deployment 130 to a plurality of orchestrators in the same deployment 130; or 3) redirecting endpoint devices of first deployment (e.g. 130A) to another orchestrator in a second deployment (e.g. 130B). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the claim limitation rendezvous system being configured to re-direct the endpoint devices of the deployment to one or more of the orchestrators of the deployment is not supported in the specification, and therefore, constitutes new matter.
Although [0049] of Applicant’s specification recites a control plane may include any number of orchestrators, and [0124] recites redirecting the endpoint device 136 to a single orchestrator 132, the specification does not recite the endpoint devices being redirected to a plurality of orchestrators. Examiner notes that [0052] recites the rendezvous system redirecting endpoint devices to corresponding entities, and [0022] recites the entity being the orchestrator. During an interview held on July 23, 2026, Applicant’s Representative explained that an entity is broader than and includes an orchestrator. Therefore, Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite redirecting endpoint devices to a plurality of entities and clarify how the entities are distinguished from orchestrators in a manner consistent with Applicant's specification.
If Applicant disagrees that the above limitations in claims 1, 11, and 16 are not supported in Applicant’s specification, Applicant must explicitly point to the exact location of Applicant’s specification and explain how it supports the claim limitation.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the respective parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-26 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the claims recite the limitation rendezvous system being configured to re-direct the endpoint devices of the deployment to one or more of the orchestrators of the deployment. It is unclear whether re-directing endpoint devices to a plurality of orchestrators is referring to an embodiment of 1) redirecting endpoint devices to a single orchestrator within a deployment 130 (Fig. 1A), where the system has a plurality of deployments (and thus a plurality of orchestrators); 2) redirecting endpoint devices of deployment 130 to a plurality of orchestrators in the same deployment 130; or 3) redirecting endpoint devices of first deployment (e.g. 130A) to another orchestrator in a second deployment (e.g. 130B).
For purposes of examination, Examiner construes the limitation to mean 3) redirecting endpoint devices of first deployment (e.g. 130A) to another orchestrator in a second deployment (e.g. 130B).
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the respective parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Mehrotra (US 11909575 B1) – “Cloud-connected Baseboard Management Controller” relates to a cloud-connected baseboard management controller (BMC) enabling remote management of all management layers of edge-based host machines from the cloud without imposition of costs associated with firewalls and private data connections, where a remote management agent incorporated into the BMC enables creation of a remote management-enabled bare-metal server paradigm in which remote management from the cloud is supported at the lowest hardware levels which provides for cost-effective utilization of network resources down to even a single isolated node.
Andrews et al. (US 20220171853 A1) – “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BARE-METAL OR PRE-BOOT USER-MACHINE AUTHENTICATION, BINDING, AND ENTITLEMENT PROVISIONING” relates to bare-metal or pre-boot user-machine authentication, binding, and entitlement provisioning including forwarding an indication of the user credentials to a second portal managed by the customer; and, in response to the second portal having successfully authenticated the user, establishing an identity session with the second portal; and receiving, from the IHS, a request to initiate an entitlement sequence.
Sasin et al. (US 20170039373 A1) – “BOOTSTRAPPING WITHOUT TRANSFERRING PRIVATE KEY” discloses a secure bootstrap mechanism for endpoint devices comprising a public key attributed to a remote device, signing the public key attributed to the remote device with a private key of a server, and generating a digitally signed certificate to verify the ownership of the public key as the remote device.
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 extension fee 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 ANDREW JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3779. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5:30pm ET (Mon-Fri).
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, David Wiley can be reached on 571-272-4150. 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.
/ANDREW J JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights