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 action is responsive to the response filed April 1, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 4/1/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant amended claim 7, canceled claims 16-20, and added new claims 21-25.
Claims 1-15,21-25 remain pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/28/24 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1, recites a "system". It appears that the scope of the limitation “system” encompasses software-only embodiments since the claims fail to mention any hardware or physical computer components. Software is not statutory because it is simply abstract ideas, could be a program per se, and is not directed to actual physical devices. For a claim like this to be statutory, it is required to be tied to physical/hardware components. These claims do meet this criterion and are therefore deemed non-statutory. [See MPEP Chapter 2106.01 Section I]
Dependent claims 2-6 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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 1,2,4-11,13,14,21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (US Patent 11689388) in view of Saalfeld et al (US Patent 11405361) in view of Swierk et al (US Publication 20180253569).
In reference to claim 1, Hu teaches a system, comprising:
execute an edge application for a customer; (see at least column 3 lines 45-67, which teaches edge applications for users/customers)
a customer premises network of the customer that uses private network addresses and is separated from a public network by a gateway; (see at least column 5 line 50 – column 6 line 10, which teaches customer networks configured with private addresses) and
an edge customer premises equipment (CPE) device on the customer premises network, (see at least column 5 lines 33-53, which teaches user CPEs on the user networks) wherein the edge CPE device is configured to at least:
establish a layer-3 virtual private network between the cloud provider network and the customer premises network; (see at least column 6 lines 11-45, which teaches establishing a layer 3 VPN)
establish a layer-2 virtual interface for the edge application using a tunnel to encapsulate layer-2 traffic over the layer-3 virtual private network; (see at least column 6 lines 11-15 and column 7 lines 44-67, which teaches establishing a layer 2 interface and encapsulating the layer 2 traffic over the layer 3 VPN) and
the edge CPE device hardware interface is accessible by the edge application via the tunnel (see at least column 5 lines 13-33, which teaches enabling CPE devices to be accessed by outside applications via the tunnel).
Hu fails to explicitly teach a cloud provider network comprising at least one computing device configured to execute an edge application for a customer; and map a hardware interface on the edge CPE device so that the hardware interface is accessible by the edge application via the tunnel. However, Saalfeld teaches securing tunnel connections between client edge devices and a network/cloud providers management interface application (see Saalfeld, at least Abstract & column 6 lines 34-43 and column 8 lines 26-35). Saalfeld also teaches a registry mapping the edge client device interface with private access endpoint of the edge management application via the secure tunnel (see Saalfeld, at least column 5 lines 49-59 and column 7 lines 1-13 & 25-36). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Saalfeld for the purpose of ensuring that edge customer devices can securely connect with a provider even if the edge device does not have built in secure connection capabilities.
Hu fails to explicitly teach a cloud provider network comprising at least one computing device configured to execute an edge application for a customer; and the customer network separated by a gateway. However, Swierk teaches managing a gateway between a customer network and cloud application on a cloud provider network (see Swierk, at least Abstract & ¶s 68-70). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Swierk for the purpose of ensuring resource protection on a network.
In reference to claim 2, Hu teaches remote access between devices (see Hu, at least column 1 lines 7-17 and column 6 lines 34-43). Furthermore, Saalfeld teaches command and control of IoT devices via the management provider, see Saalfeld at least column 1 lines 8-33 and column 2 lines 16-34. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Saalfeld for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 4, Swierk teaches communication via USB or RS232, see Swierk at least ¶s 60,61. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Swierk for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 5, Swierk teaches communication via Zigbee or Bluetooth or LoRaWan, see Swierk at least ¶ 59. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Swierk for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 6, Swierk teaches the edge application receiving data via the interface and from another device not directly connected, see Swierk at least ¶s 34-36. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Swierk for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 8, Saalfeld teaches a registry mapping a plurality of edge client device interfaces with private access endpoints of the edge management application via the secure tunnel, see Saalfeld, at least column 5 lines 49-59 and column 7 lines 1-13 & 25-36. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Saalfeld for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 9, Saalfeld teaches sending and receiving data between the edge management application and the customer via the tunnel interface, see Saalfeld, at least column 5 lines 5-25 and column 6 lines 34-54. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Saalfeld for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claims 10-11, Hu teaches virtual machines (see Hu, at least column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 6). Furthermore, Saalfeld teaches a container for the edge management interface application, see Saalfeld, at least column 6 lines 34-63. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Saalfeld for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
Claims 7,13,14,21-25 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (US Patent 11689388) in view of Saalfeld et al (US Patent 11405361) in view of Swierk et al (US Publication 20180253569) in further view of Poirier et al (US Patent 9374267).
In reference to claim 3, Hu fails to explicitly teach assigning a network address by DHCP. However, Poirier teaches managing cloud based customer equipment and discloses address assignment via DHCP (see Poirier, at least Abstract & column 6 lines 13-20 & 31-48, and column 8 line 50 – column 9 line 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Poirier for the purpose of dynamically providing network access to devices.
Claim 12 is a slight variations of the rejected claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (US Patent 11689388) in view of Saalfeld et al (US Patent 11405361) in view of Swierk et al (US Publication 20180253569) in further view of Bodurka (US Publication 20230216355).
In reference to claim 15, Hu fails to explicitly teach a Matter interface. However, Bodurka teaches connecting to and controlling IoT devices, and discloses connections via Matter interface (see Bodurka, at least Abstract & ¶ 43). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hu based on the teachings of Bodurka for the purpose of enabling device management via a variety of standard communication protocols.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights