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 filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended dependent claim 5 into independent Claim 1.
Applicant argues: “Specifically, in Radzikowski, the agent is responsible form managing access to all of the devices in a datacenter (i.e. “devices 102”). In contrast, according to the present claims, the remote proxy is provisioned with manifests for nodes within a computing system that may communicate with the first node…Therefore, the manifest contains permissions which are specific to the first node, and not to a plurality of devices in Radzikowski (Remarks pg. 7).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be arguing that the manifest contains permissions which are specific to only the first node, however this is not in the claimed language. The claim merely requires a manifest “for nodes…that may communicate with the first node.” There is no indication that the manifest must be specific to a particular node. If the Applicant intends the require that the permissions are specific to only the first node, this language must be in the claims.
Radzikowski teaches the distributed devices are usable by “any of the nodes in the plurality of nodes in the distributed system” (See Claim 19 and supporting text). That is, each node in the plurality of distributed nodes, is provisioned with the agent responsible for managing access to the devices in the data center. Therefore Radzikowski teaches the remote proxy is provisioned with manifests for nodes within a computing system that may communicate with the first node as well as other nodes in the distributed cloud.
Applicant argues “no such manifest is disclosed…While Radzikowski discloses permissions, authentication, authorization, and auditing models” Radzikowski does not disclose a manifest which is specific to one node in the present claims (Remarks pg. 7).”
Similar to the above argument, there is no requirement that the manifest is specific to one node. Furthermore Paragraph [0027] as cited, teaches “control principal access to the datacenter devices 102 through device drives 222.” This teaches providing a manifest for nodes that may communicate with proxy. Also see Fig. 2 wherein the datacenter devices 102 are able to communicate with the proxy 210.
The remaining arguments are derived from the above and unpersuasive for a similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radzikowski (US 8,839,375)
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);
Regarding Claim 8,
Radzikowski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first node is a computing unit in a computer system (Paragraph [0051-0052] and Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 10,
Radzikowski teaches the method of claim 1, 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 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) 2-3, 9, 12-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzikowski
Regarding Claims 2-3,
Radzikowski 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 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 in view of Clopp (US 2019/0379740)
Regarding Claim 4,
Radzikowski 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 in view of Ray (US 2022/0263805)
Regarding Claims 6-7,
Radzikowski 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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