DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on May 5th, 2026.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1~20 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.
Double Patenting
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 10,091,276, claims 1~20 of US Patent 10,949,778, and claims 1~18 of U.S. Patent 12,056,635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patents mentioned above anticipates claims 1~20 of the instant application. See previous office action for table comparison.
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.
Claims 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S 2006/0173857) in view of Nefedov et al. hereinafter Nefedov (U.S 2013/0263206).
Regarding Claim 1,
Jackson taught a method of generating a synthetic network, the method comprising:
receiving a set of rules into an ad-hoc network having distributed nodes, where each node is capable of processing the set of rules [¶34, distributed computing system 10], and wherein each node comprises a processor and memory [¶35, each computing node includes one or more programmable processors for executing software instructions stored on one or more computer-readable media];
identifying a data set for each received rule [¶122, sensor subsystem 240 sends inputs to analysis subsystem 244 to communicate the aggregated data on a periodic or event-driven basis; ¶124, analysis subsystem 244 is composed of rule engines 246A-N that match patterns in a combination of configuration data and monitoring data in presented in the form of events. Events contain the aggregated data values that are sent to rule engines 246];
selecting a first node from the distributed nodes to process a received first rule as a function of the identified data set [¶56, each node slot represents a data set that describes specific information for a corresponding node; ¶126, analysis subsystem 244 allows rule sets to be loaded in source form and compiled at load time into discrimination networks; ¶84];
selecting a second node from the distributed nodes to process a received second rule as a function of the identified data set [¶56, each node slot represents a data set that describes specific information for a corresponding node; ¶126, analysis subsystem 244 allows rule sets to be loaded in source form and compiled at load time into discrimination networks; ¶84];
selecting a third node from the distributed nodes to receive the processed results from the first and second node as a function of the received set of rules [¶108, monitoring subsystem 202 provides real-time monitoring of the distributed computing system 10. Monitoring subsystem 202 dynamically collects status data 203 from the hardware and software operating within distributed computing system 10, and feeds the status data in the form of monitor inputs 208 to SLAI 204; ¶113; ¶117];
receiving the processed results from the first and second nodes at the third node [¶113, collectors 224 are responsible for protocol-specific collection of monitoring information; ¶114, monitoring engine 222 receives collection requests from SLAI 204, sorts and prioritizes the requests, and invokes the appropriate one of collectors 224 based on the protocol specified in the collection requests. The invoked collector is responsible for collecting the required status data and returning the status data to monitoring engine 22]; and
providing an indication of the received processed results at the third node [¶150, report generator 302 gathers, localizes, formats and displays data into report form for presentation to the user].
Jackson did not specifically teach identifying a data set comprising spatial, temporal, and contextual data elements; indexing, in a distributed data structure in memory at the third node, the processed results by spatial, temporal, or contextual elements as a function of the received set of rules; and wherein the indication comprises one or more of displaying the received processed results, providing an alert, transmitting a notification message, changing a display, or displaying a recommended action sequence.
Nefedov taught identifying a data set comprising spatial, temporal, and contextual data elements [¶33, determine context data associated with the plurality of application data requests (e.g., location information, timing information, orientation, etc.];
indexing, in a distributed data structure in memory at the third node, the processed results by spatial, temporal, or contextual elements as a function of the received set of rules [¶37, the one or more contextual parameters may include one or more temporal parameters, one or more location parameters, and/or one or more activity parameters; ¶45; ¶71, the automatic logging analysis of large quantities of data can extract previously unknown interesting pattern using database techniques such as spatial indexes; ¶73, rule-based mining]; and
wherein the indication comprises one or more of displaying the received processed results, providing an alert, transmitting a notification message, changing a display, or displaying a recommended action sequence [¶100, if the conditions are satisfied, the compliance platform 103 determines anomaly is detected and then prompts an alert to the user].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Nefedov’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Jackson, because the combination would automatically adapt policies for applications based on user context, preferences, etc. after application installation [Nefedov: ¶1~¶2].
Regarding Claim 2,
Jackson taught wherein the first node is different from the second node and the third node is the same as the first or second node [¶60, control node 12 assigns computing nodes to the tier whose node attributes most closely match the node requirements of the tier; ¶40, other control nodes 12 are optional and may be associated with a different subset of the computing nodes within distributed computing system 10].
Regarding Claim 3,
Jackson taught wherein the step of selecting the first node includes identifying a source of data in the received data set [¶157, when certain preconditions are true, the sensor becomes active. Thereafter, the sensor performs some action whenever the sensor detects a certain pattern of data in the stream of information describing the actual state of the system 208].
Regarding Claim 4,
Jackson taught wherein the step of identifying a source of data includes identifying one or more of a dynamic data source, a location of the data, or an origin of the data [¶123, sensor subsystem 240 performs arbitrary data aggregations via instances of plug-in classes that define the aggregations).
Regarding Claim 5,
Jackson taught wherein the step of selecting the first node includes using an optimizing algorithm [¶67, control node 12 may automatically assign unallocated nodes from free node pool 13 to at least a portion of tier node slots 38 of tiers 36 as needed using the “best fit” algorithm].
Regarding Claim 6,
Jackson taught wherein the optimizing algorithm minimizes a transfer amount of data from the received data set [¶154, only the rules and rule instantiations affected by changes are updated, thereby avoiding the bulk of the matching process].
Regarding Claim 7,
Jackson taught wherein the optimizing algorithm minimizes the processing required to process the received set of rules [¶154, RETE algorithm that creates a decision tree that combines the patterns in all the rules and is intended to improve the speed of forward-chained rule system by limiting the effort required to re-compute a conflict set after a rule is fired].
Regarding Claim 8,
Jackson taught wherein the optimizing algorithm selects the first node as a function of the availability of the first node [¶84, control node 12 then determines whether there are any computing nodes in the free pool of nodes that meet the minimum node requirements of the tier].
Regarding Claim 9,
Jackson taught wherein each rule of the set of rules includes a plurality of subrules [¶153, execution engine 346 first matches a current set of rules 342 against a current state of working memory 348 and local objects 350. Execution engine 346 then collects all rules that match as well as the matched objects and selects a particular rule instantiation to fire; ¶126].
Regarding Claim 10,
Jackson taught further comprising the step of providing an indication comprises one or more of the following steps: displaying the received processed results at the third node [¶150, report generator 302 gathers, localizes, formats and displays data into report form for presentation to the user; ¶109].
Regarding Claims 11~20, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~10 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights