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 .
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 24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the meaning of “all of the rendezvous server, the endpoint device, and the plurality of orchestrators” is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210099339 (Behm) in view of US 20130339949 (Spiers) further in view of US 11675577 (Aseev).
Regarding claim 8, Behm teaches or suggests a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing endpoint devices (claim 13), the operations comprising:
during an onboarding of an endpoint device of the endpoint devices, the endpoint device being configured to be onboarded to a deployment (¶ 2):
cooperating, by the endpoint device, with the orchestrator of the orchestrators to complete the onboarding of the endpoint device to a deployment (¶¶ 40, 42, 43); and
providing, by the endpoint device, a portion of computer implemented services provided by the deployment (¶ 2).
Behm does not expressly disclose but Spiers teaches or suggests obtaining, by an endpoint device and from a rendezvous server, a plurality of rendezvous data packages, each of the plurality of rendezvous data package comprising network information for a respective orchestrator of a plurality of orchestrators available for onboarding (¶ 38) and the rendezvous server being remote to both of the endpoint device and the deployment (¶ 63);
performing, directly by the endpoint device and using the plurality of rendezvous data packages, a resolution process to select a first orchestrator of the orchestrators (¶¶ 38-39) wherein the endpoint device, the rendezvous server, and each of the plurality of orchestrators are separate and distinct from one another (¶ 63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Behm’s onboarding and Spiers’s selecting in order to intelligently select an orchestrator.
Behm does not expressly disclose but Aseev teaches or suggests each of the plurality of rendezvous data packages further comprises limiting information indicating at least one criterion and indicating that a corresponding orchestrator of the plurality of orchestrators must be selected as the first orchestrator if the at least one criterion is met by the endpoint device (claim 21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Behm’s onboarding, Spiers’s selecting, and Aseev’s limiting in order to meet minimum requirements.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests each rendezvous data package further comprises: preference information that indicates whether a corresponding orchestrator of the plurality of orchestrators is a preferred onboarding partner for the endpoint device (Spiers ¶ 38). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the preference information comprises an identifier from a list of identifiers consisting of:
a domain;
a network address; and
a tag applied to the endpoint device by a dynamic host configuration protocol system. (Spiers ¶ 38). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 8.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 15-17, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as explained regarding claims 8-10 supra, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210099339 (Behm) in view of US 20130339949 (Spiers) further in view of US 11675577 (Aseev). and US 10547679 (Burnett).
Behm does not expressly disclose but Burnett teaches or suggests the identifier is usable to determine whether the preference information is applicable to the endpoint device (19:32-60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Behm’s onboarding, Spiers’s selecting, Aseev’s limiting, and Burnett’s determination in order to facilitate compatibility.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210099339 (Behm) in view of US 20130339949 (Spiers) further in view of US 11675577 (Aseev), US 10547679 (Burnett), and US 20090300199 (Burns).
Behm does not expressly disclose but Burns teaches or suggests the limiting information further indicating whether the preference information is required to be met in the resolution process or may not be met in the resolution process (¶ 42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Behm’s onboarding, Spiers’s selecting, Aseev’s limiting, Burnett’s determination, and Burns’ limiting in order to differentiate criteria.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 20210099339 (Behm) in view of US 20130339949 (Spiers) further in view of US 11675577 (Aseev), US 10547679 (Burnett), US 20090300199 (Burns), and US 20100042711 (Hernandez).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Behm does not expressly disclose but Spiers teaches or suggests weight information for the corresponding orchestrator of the orchestrators (¶ 39) and Hernandez teaches or suggests each rendezvous data package further comprises: weight information for the corresponding orchestrator of the orchestrators (¶ 26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Behm’s onboarding, Spiers’s selecting, Aseev’s limiting, Burnett’s determination, Burns’ limiting, and Hernandez’s weight in order to prioritize criteria.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests performing the resolution process comprises:
using weights from the plurality of rendezvous data packages to weight at least a portion of the plurality of orchestrators (Spiers ¶ 39, Hernandez ¶ 26); and
using a highest weighted orchestrator of the plurality of orchestrators as the selected orchestrator (Spiers ¶ 39, Hernandez ¶ 26,). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claims 6, 13, and 20.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210099339 (Behm) in view of US 20130339949 (Spiers) further in view of US 11675577 (Aseev) and WO 2022039359 (Lee).
Behm does not expressly disclose but Lee teaches or suggests all of the plurality of orchestrators are registered with the rendezvous server, and wherein each of the plurality of orchestrators provides a respective one of the plurality of rendezvous data packages to the rendezvous server when registering with the rendezvous server (TECH-SOLUTION). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Behm’s onboarding, Spiers’s selecting, Aseev’s limiting, and Lee’s registration in order to learn about orchestrators.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that “amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are patentable over Behm, Spiers, Burnett, Burns, and Hernandez. By virtue of their dependence, the remaining claims are also patentable for at least the same reasons.” (Resp. 9.)
Aseev has been added, however, to teach or suggest the argued limitations.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 10489808 determines policies for cloud orchestrators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights