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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4,6-14 and 16-20 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.
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, 8-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzikowski (US 8,839,375) in view of Haghighat (US 2022/0342684)
Regarding Claim 1,
Radzikowski (US 2013/0318571) teaches a method at a remote proxy on a first node, the method comprising:
receiving, at the remote proxy, a message from a second node, the message comprising a request for a service (Fig. 1, 2 and associated text, in particular, Nodes running Distributed Operating System receives a request for service from user 106, 208) ;
verifying that the second node is authorized to request the service based on a manifest at the remote proxy (Fig. 1 and associated text, and Col. 3, lines 56-66, teaches agent verifies device as access to resources)(Fig. 2 and associated text, including 224, 226, teaches uniform and device security model store);
forward the request to at least one of a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) for the service or the service; receiving a response to the request from the HAL or the service; and forwarding the response to the second node (Fig. 1, shows forwarding a request to the service 102, and the response back to the user)(Fig. 2 shows Hardware Abstraction Layer 220)
wherein the remote proxy is provisioned with manifests for nodes within a computing system that may communicate with the first node (Fig. 2 and associated text, including 224, 226, teaches uniform and device security model store)(Paragraph [0027] teaches providing access to principles to the plurality of distributed system devices);
Radzikowski does not explicitly teach a list of manifests, each manifest within the list of manifests corresponding to a distinct node, wherein each node corresponding to a manifest within the list of manifests is authorized to request the service
Haghighat (US 2022/0342684) teaches a list of manifests, each manifest within the list of manifests corresponding to a distinct node, wherein each node corresponding to a manifest within the list of manifests is authorized to request the service (Fig. 6, server 502 includes an Export Device Manager 504, and a Secure Engine 506, Paragraph [0067] teaches the export device manager 504 registers hardware devices which have the permission to request service)(Fig. 6 teaches list of different hardware devices that registers with the server)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Radzikowski to include a manifest of nodes authorized to request services as taught by Haghighat and the results would be predictable (i.e. Radzikowski would have a list of nodes authorized to request services)
Regarding Claim 8,
Radzikowski and Haghighat teaches the method of claim 1. Radzikowski teaches wherein the first node is a computing unit in a computer system (Paragraph [0051-0052] and Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 10,
Radzikowski and Haghighat teaches the method of claim 1. Radzikowski teaches wherein the message identifies the service, and wherein the manifest at the remote proxy identifies nodes authorized to access the service (Fig. 2 and associated text, including 224, 226, teaches uniform and device security model store)(Paragraph [0027] teaches providing access to principles to the plurality of distributed system devices);
Regarding Claim 11, 19
Claims 11, 19 are similar to Claim 1, 9 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9, 12-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzikowski and Haghighat
Regarding Claims 2-3,
Radzikowski and Haghighat teaches the method of claim 1. While Radzikowski teaches further comprising using a private key portion and a public key portion of the device identification key (Paragraph [0021]), Radzikowski does not explicitly teach prior to forwarding the response, signing the response with a private key of the first node.
or encrypting the response with a public key of the second node.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that signing with a private key and encrypting with a public key is well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the private key of Radzikowski to sign a response and modify the public key of Radzikowski to encrypt a response prior to forwarding the response and the results would be predictable (i.e. signing with private key, encrypting with public key before response)
Regarding Claim 9,
Radzikowski and Haghighat teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first node includes a plurality of hardware abstraction layers, a plurality of services, or a combination of at least one hardware abstraction layer and at least one service (Fig. 2, teaches nodes, and hardware abstract layer and services); Radzikowski does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of remote proxies exist on the first node, each of the plurality of remote proxies being associated with a subset of hardware abstraction layers and/or services.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to the modify the remote proxies of Radzikowski to include each proxy being associated with a subset hardware abstraction layers and/or services and the results would be predictable (i.e. each proxy nodes in Radzkowski would include a subset of hardware abstraction layers and/or services.)
Regarding Claims 12-13, 18,
Claims 12-13, 18 are similar in scope to Claims 2-3, 9 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzikowski and Haghighat in view of Clopp (US 2019/0379740)
Regarding Claim 4,
Radzikowski and Haghighat teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first node and the second node use different operating systems.
Clopp (US 2019/0379740) teaches wherein the first node and the second node use different operating systems (Paragraph [0034] teaches running different operating systems on different hardware components)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nodes in Radzikowski to have different operating systems and the results would be predictable (i.e. the nodes would have different operating systems)
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is similar in scope to Claim 4 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzikowski and Haghighat in view of Ray (US 2022/0263805)
Regarding Claims 6-7,
Radzikowski and Haghighat teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the message is encrypted by a second remote proxy for the second node using a public key for the first node, further comprising decrypting the message using a private key of the first node.
Ray (US 2022/0263805) teaches message is encrypted by a second remote proxy for the second node using a public key for the first node, further comprising decrypting the message using a private key of the first node (Paragraph [0023-0024] teaches host proxy encrypts message with public key of destination proxy, and the destination decrypts using private key)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Radziwkoski to encrypt a message using a public key and decrypt using the private key of the first node and the results would be predictable (i.e. message would be encrypted using the public key and decrypted using private key of the node)
Regarding Claims 16-17,
Claims 16-17 are similar in scope to Claims 6-7 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights