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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/09/2026. In the instant Amendment, claims 1-34 are cancelled; no claims are amended; claims 35, 44, 53 and 54 are independent claims. Claims 35-54 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 35-43 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn as Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 35, 44, 53 and 54 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 35, 44, 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) and further in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611).
Regarding claim 35, Novo Diaz discloses a method of operating a requesting computing node to orchestrate execution of a peer-to-peer negotiation protocol to gain access, to resources that are physically located on a remote computing node, the method comprising: (Novo Diaz, [0001]-[0002], Figures 1-2; [0032]; [0006] describes P2P peer node selection and a requesting node peer in a P2P network; [0002] describes P2P peer nodes provide resources such as bandwidth, processing capabilities and storage capacity; peers obtain services/data from one of many peers)
sending one or more requests, to one or more remote computing nodes, for access to the resources that are physically located on the one or more remote computing nodes; (Novo Diaz, [0024], [0028]-[0029], claim 1 describes a requesting peer node sends request to each of a plurality of target peer nodes asking for available services and resources)
receiving, from the one or more remote computing nodes, one or more responses for access to the resources that are physically located on the one or more remote computing nodes; (Novo Diaz, [0026], [0029]-[0030], claim 1 describes requesting peer node receives response from each target peer node with information about available services and resources at that node)
and selecting a subset of the one or more responses for access to accept, (Novo Diaz, [0027], [0030], claim 1, 8-9 describe the requesting node selects one target peer node from among multiple responses based on geo-location, trust level, and proximity criteria [selecting a subset])
Novo Diaz fails to explicitly disclose to gain access, for a requested time period; and selecting a subset of the one or more responses for access to accept.
However, in an analogous art, Diep discloses to gain access, for a requested time period (Diep in [0004] the SLO/SLA framework includes breach values for peak and off-peak hours in a schedule and a guaranteed level of service defined in an SLA [requested time period]).
and selecting a subset of the one or more responses for access to accept, (Diep in [0020]-[0021]; [0029] describe allocation/optimization among resources/providers supplies resource-oriented reason to select/allocate; [0017], [0020], [0023] describes the controller determines whether to act on or ignore received resource allocation events, effectively selecting among responses)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Diep with the method and system of Novo Diaz to include to gain access, for a requested time period and selecting a subset of the one or more responses for access to accept. One would have been motivated to provide peer-to-peer resource negotiation and coordination to satisfy a service level objective (Diep, [0002]).
Regarding claim 44, Novo Diaz discloses a method of operating a remote computing node to orchestrate execution of a peer-to-peer negotiation protocol to grant access, to resources that are physically located on the remote computing node, the method comprising: (Novo Diaz, [0015], [0022], claim 7 describe target peer node receives request and provides its own services and resources to requesting peer node via P2P protocol)
receiving one or more requests, from one or more requesting computing nodes, for access to the resources that are physically located on the remote computing nodes; (Novo Diaz, [0029], [0037], claim 7 describes target peer node receives request from requesting peer node for resources/services available at the target node)
transmitting, to the one or more requesting computing nodes, one or more responses for access to the resources that are physically located on the remote computing node; (Novo Diaz, [0029], [0037], claim 7 describes target peer node transmits responses to requesting peer node including information about available services and resources at that node)
and providing, to the one or more requesting computing nodes, access to the resources that are physically located on the remote computing node, (Novo Diaz, [0030], [0038], [0040], claim 7 describes the selected target peer node provides relay service and resources located on that node to the requesting peer node following selection)
Novo Diaz fails to explicitly disclose to grant access, for a requested time period, to resources that are physically located on the remote computing node and providing, to the one or more requesting computing nodes, access to the resources that are physically located on the remote computing node.
However, in an analogous art, Diep discloses to grant access, for a requested time period, to resources that are physically located on the remote computing node (Diep, [0004]-[0008] and [0017]-[0021] describe resource providers/controllers allocate additional resources and SLA/SLO schedule supplies timing; [0004] the SLO/SLA framework includes breach values for peak and off-peak hours in a schedule and a guaranteed level of service defined in an SLA [requested time period])
providing, to the one or more requesting computing nodes, access to the resources that are physically located on the remote computing node, (Diep in [0021], [0024], [0027] describes a pool optimizer and deployment engine allocate and provide access to physical resources from the responding controller’s resource clusters to the requesting peer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Diep with the method and system of Novo Diaz to include to grant access, for a requested time period, to resources that are physically located on the remote computing node; providing, to the one or more requesting computing nodes, access to the resources that are physically located on the remote computing node. One would have been motivated to provide peer-to-peer resource negotiation and coordination to satisfy a service level objective (Diep, [0002]).
Regarding claim 53, claim 53 is directed to a requesting computing node. Claim 53 is similar in scope to claim 35 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 54, claim 54 is directed to a requesting computing node. Claim 54 is similar in scope to claim 44 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 36 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) and further in view of Cherian et al (“Cherian,” US 20130111044).
Regarding claim 36, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more requests comprise a requested time period for access to the resources.
However, in an analogous art, Cherian discloses wherein the one or more requests comprise a requested time period for access to the resources, (Cherian discloses in [0221] wherein the one or more requests comprise a requested time period for access to the resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cherian with the method and system Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein the one or more requests comprise a requested time period for access to the resources. One would have been motivated to provide a fast initial network link setup within wireless communication systems (Cherian, [0003]).
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 45 is similar in scope to claim 36 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 37 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) and further in view of Sczepczenski et al (“Sczepczenski,” US 20210266177).
Regarding claim 37, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein both the requesting computing node and the one or more remote computing nodes are part of a trusted group of devices, which has been set up prior to sending the one or more requests.
However, in an analogous art, Sczepczenski discloses wherein both the requesting computing node and the one or more remote computing nodes are part of a trusted group of devices, which has been set up prior to sending the one or more requests, (Szepczenski describes wherein both the requesting computing node [0032], [0042] and the one or more remote computing nodes [0187] are part of a trusted group of devices [0041]-[0042], which has been set up prior to sending the one or more requests [0042])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sczepczenski with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein both the requesting computing node and the one or more remote computing nodes are part of a trusted group of devices, which has been set up prior to sending the one or more requests.. One would have been motivated to provide security within computing environments, and in particular to generation of a secure key exchange (SKE) authentication response by a node of a computing environment, (Sczepczenski, [0001]).
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 46 is similar in scope to claim 37 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 38 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) and further in view of Rothman et al (“Rothman,” US 20050021847).
Regarding claim 38, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz further discloses wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol (Novo Diaz, [0001]-[0002], Figures 1-2; [0032]; [0006] describes P2P peer node selection and a requesting node peer in a P2P network; [0002] describes P2P peer nodes provide resources such as bandwidth, processing capabilities and storage capacity; peers obtain services/data from one of many peers)
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol runs in a background of the requesting computing node without direct communication with any currently executing applications on the requesting computing node.
However, in an analogous art, Rothman discloses wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol runs in a background of the requesting computing node without direct communication with any currently executing applications on the requesting computing node, (Rothman, [0029]-[0030], [0059], also see [0061], [0065], [0068], FIG 7 describe resource sharing and access operations run via SMM-a hidden firmware execution mode activated by SMI Interrupts. The processor switches silently into SMM to perform all resource negotiation and OOB communications, then returns to its prior state via RSM instruction. Normal execution continues unaware; [0029], [0037], [0059]-[0061]; [0068] describes OOB communications are performed entirely in SMM-a protected memory region (SMRAM) that is hidden from subsequently loaded operating system. All resource negotiation messaging passes through the OOB channel and SMM handlers, bypassing the OS and all runtime applications entirely)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rothman with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol runs in a background of the requesting computing node without direct communication with any currently executing applications on the requesting computing node. One would have been motivated to provide techniques for sharing resources hosted by individual platforms (nodes) to create global resources that may be shared across all nodes (Rothman, [0002]).
Regarding claim 47, claim 47 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 47 is similar in scope to claim 38 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 39 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615), Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) in view of Rothman et al (“Rothman,” US 20050021847) and further in view of Kempf et al (“Kempf,” US 20190058709).
Regarding claim 39, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 38.
Rothman further discloses wherein the negotiation protocol runs in a kernel space of the requesting computing node and is initiated by a kernel of the requesting computing node, (Rothman, [0030], [0059]-[0061], also see [0065], FIG 5, block 504; FIG 6 an SMM code runs in SMRAM-a protected memory region loaded during firmware initialization and inaccessible to the OS or user-space applications. SMM is a privileged execution environment operating at a level below and independent of the OS kernel, directly analogous to kernel space in that it executes with full hardware privilege and is isolated from all user-mode and application code; [0061], [0065]-[0066], [0080]; FIG 5, block 504; FIG 7, block 706 describes the SMM negotiation protocol is initiated by assertion of an SMI interrupt-either via the SMI pin which is hardware or an SMI instruction issued by firmware/management driver. The firmware management/access driver asserts the SMI to activate the OOB communications handler, triggering the protocol without application involvement)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rothman with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein the negotiation protocol runs in a background of the requesting computing node without direct communication with any currently executing applications on the requesting computing node. One would have been motivated to provide techniques for sharing resources hosted by individual platforms (nodes) to create global resources that may be shared across all nodes (Rothman, [0002]).
Novo Diaz, Diep and Rothman fail to explicitly disclose wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol runs in a kernel space of the requesting computing node and is initiated by a kernel of the requesting computing node.
However, in an analogous art, Kempf discloses wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol runs in a kernel space of the requesting computing node and is initiated by a kernel of the requesting computing node, (Kempf describes wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol [0048], [0042, [0012] runs in a kernel space [0111] of the requesting computing node [0124], [0008] and is initiated by a kernel [0111] of the requesting computing node [0124], [0008])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kempf with the method and system of Novo Diaz, Diep and Rothman to include wherein the peer-to-peer negotiation protocol runs in a kernel space of the requesting computing node and is initiated by a kernel of the requesting computing node. One would have been motivated to manage one or more tenants in a cloud computing environment comprising one or more data centers (Kempf, [0002]).
Regarding claim 48, claim 48 is directed to the method of claim 47. Claim 48 is similar in scope to claim 39 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 40 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615), Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) in view of Tsul et al (“Tsul,” US 20080250408).
Regarding claim 40, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz further discloses wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement; (Novo Diaz, [0024], [0028]-[0029], claim 1 describes a requesting peer node sends request to each of a plurality of target peer nodes asking for available services and resources)
Diep further discloses wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement and wherein the device-wide requirement comprises one or more of the group consisting of: a security violation; (Diep, [0008], [0020]-[0021] describes wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement and wherein the device-wide requirement comprises one or more of the group consisting of: a security violation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Diep with the method and system of Novo Diaz to include wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement and wherein the device-wide requirement comprises one or more of the group consisting of: a security violation. One would have been motivated to provide peer-to-peer resource negotiation and coordination to satisfy a service level objective (Diep, [0002]).
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement and wherein the device-wide requirement comprises one or more of the group consisting of: a need for energy efficiency; and a need for resources unavailable at the requesting computing node.
However, in an analogous art, Tsul discloses wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement and wherein the device-wide requirement comprises one or more of the group consisting of: (Tsul, [0047], [0073], Figures 9-10 describes the diagnosis component monitors the whole device and is done automatically)
a need for energy efficiency; (Tsul, [0073], Figure 9, block 904 describes a loss of power for the mobile device that triggers the sharing request)
and a need for resources unavailable at the requesting computing node (Tsul, [0074], Figure 10, block 1002 describes the diagnosis component triggers request when components are disabled, unavailable, inactivated or inefficient)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsul with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein sending the one or more requests is in response to a triggering of a device-wide requirement and wherein the device-wide requirement comprises one or more of the group consisting of: a need for energy efficiency; and a need for resources unavailable at the requesting computing node. One would have been motivated to provide peer to peer sharing of functionality of mobile devices in a wireless communication system (Tsul, [0002]).
Regarding claim 49, claim 49 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 49 is similar in scope to claim 40 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 41 and 50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) and further in view of Shear et al (“Shear,” US 20160034305).
Regarding claim 41, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept comprises implementing an efficiency-oriented ranking system, which takes into consideration one or more factors from the group consisting of: a link quality; a resource performance; and a device reliability.
However, in an analogous art, Shear discloses wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept comprises implementing an efficiency-oriented ranking system, which takes into consideration one or more factors from the group consisting of: a link quality; a resource performance; and a device reliability, (Shear describes wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access [0031], [0217] to accept comprises implementing an efficiency-oriented ranking system [0353], [0500] which takes into consideration one or more factors from the group consisting of: a link quality; a resource performance [1680]; and a device reliability)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shear with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept comprises implementing an efficiency-oriented ranking system, which takes into consideration one or more factors from the group consisting of: a link quality; a resource performance; and a device reliability. One would have been motivated to facilitate user purpose in a computing architecture (Shear, [0003]).
Regarding claim 50, claim 50 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 50 is similar in scope to claim 41 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 42 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) and further in view of Guim et al (“Guim,” WO 2020226979).
Regarding claim 42, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept further comprises signing a resource sharing contract between the requesting computing node and the one or more remote computing nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Guim discloses wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept further comprises signing a resource sharing contract between the requesting computing node and the one or more remote computing nodes, (Guim describes [0141]-[0142] wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept further comprises signing a resource sharing contract [0265], [0182] between the requesting computing node [0474] and the one or more remote computing nodes [0585])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guim with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein selecting the subset of the one or more responses for access to accept further comprises signing a resource sharing contract between the requesting computing node and the one or more remote computing nodes. One would have been motivated to provide capabilities of an edge computing architecture and an implementing edge computing system (Guim, [0089]).
Regarding claim 51, claim 51 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 51 is similar in scope to claim 44 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 43 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novo Diaz et al (“Novo Diaz,” US 20110093615) in view of Diep et al (“Diep,” US 20060149611) and further in view of Kumar et al (“Kumar,” US 20180109538).
Regarding claim 43, Novo Diaz and Diep disclose the method of claim 35.
Novo Diaz and Diep fail to explicitly disclose wherein any of the steps leverage, to securely exchange negotiation messages, one or more security mechanisms selected from the group consisting of: public-private key encryption; and trusted execution environments.
However, in an analogous art, Kumar discloses wherein any of the steps leverage, to securely exchange negotiation messages, (Kumar, [0069] describes wherein any of the steps to leverage securely exchange negotiation messages)
one or more security mechanisms selected from the group consisting of: public-private key encryption; (Kumar, [0094] describes encryption using Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) private key of a public private key pair)
and trusted execution environments (Kumar, [0008] and trusted execution environments)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kumar with the method and system of Novo Diaz and Diep to include wherein any of the steps leverage, to securely exchange negotiation messages, one or more security mechanisms selected from the group consisting of: public-private key encryption; and trusted execution environments. One would have been motivated to provide post authorization risk management controls provisioned dynamically by the device owner and enforced by an underlying trusted services platform module, at runtime, during invocation of the application programming interface by a plurality of applications executing on the device (Kumar, [0015]).
Regarding claim 52, claim 52 is directed to the method of claim 44. Claim 52 is similar in scope to claim 43 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights