DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1 and 22 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it/they use(s) the term “configured to” with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Regarding Claim 1, “a transmission unit configured to transmit the one or more first networks to the one or more first processors on a one-to-one basis, and transmit the second network to the second processor”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraphs 96-97. Transmitting is viewed as a coextensive function. Therefore, no algorithm is required.
Regarding Claim 22, “a transmission unit configured to transmit the one or more first networks to the one or more first processors on a one-to-one basis and transmit the second network to the second processor”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraphs 96-97. Transmitting is viewed as a coextensive function. Therefore, no algorithm is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is indefinite because “one-to-one basis” is unclear. The examiner is unable to determine from the claim and the specifications what the one or more first networks are being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis. For example, Claims 10, 13, and 15 properly clarify what is being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis, however, Claim 1 does not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 2-13 and 15-19, Dependent Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, in addition to inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 1, the term "commonly" in Claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "commonly" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is indefinite because “one-to-one basis” is unclear. The examiner is unable to determine from the claim and the specifications what the one or more first networks are being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis. For example, Claims 10, 13, and 15 properly clarify what is being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis, however, Claim 20 does not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is indefinite because “one-to-one basis” is unclear. The examiner is unable to determine from the claim and the specifications what the one or more first networks are being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis. For example, Claims 10, 13, and 15 properly clarify what is being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis, however, Claim 21 does not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is indefinite because “one-to-one basis” is unclear. The examiner is unable to determine from the claim and the specifications what the one or more first networks are being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis. For example, Claims 10, 13, and 15 properly clarify what is being corresponded to on a one-to-one basis, however, Claim 22 does not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 23-28, Dependent Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 22.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1-7 and 9-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mineikis et al (“Mineikis”, US 20230269231) in view of Bernardin et al (“Bernardin”, US 20020023117).
Regarding Claim 1, Mineikis teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a controller configured to select, from a plurality of networks, one or more first networks executed on a one-to-one basis by one or more first processors (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 99-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis).),
and select, from the plurality of networks, a second network executed by a processor (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 99-105; The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails.);
and a transmission unit configured to transmit the one or more first networks to the one or more first processors on a one-to-one basis (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 99-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis).),
and transmit the second network to the processor (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 99-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis).),
wherein the processor executes the second network using output data as an input, the output data being output as a result of executing a network selected from the one or more first networks for at least one processor among the one or more first processors (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.),
and the controller selects, from the plurality of networks, the second network according to the output data (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.).
Mineikis does not explicitly teach one or more first networks executed by one or more first processors different from each other; a second processor.
Bernardin teaches one or more first networks executed by one or more first processors different from each other (par 16);
a second processor (par 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis with the peer-to-peer networking of Bernadin because it reduces load on the central server and reduces latency.
Regarding Claim 2, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mineikis does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more first processors is different from the second processor.
Bernadin teaches wherein at least one of the one or more first processors is different from the second processor (par 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis with the peer-to-peer networking of Bernadin because it reduces load on the central server and reduces latency.
Regarding Claim 3, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller adaptively selects the second network according to the output data (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.).
Regarding Claim 4, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the one or more first networks and the second network according to required performance that is performance required for execution of processing by at least one of the one or more first networks and the second network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.).
Regarding Claim 5, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the one or more first networks and the second network based on at least one of the required performance for a hardware element and the required performance for an application element, the application element being required for the output data by an application that executes processing on the output data (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.).
Regarding Claim 6, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the hardware element includes capability and constraint of at least one of the
one or more first processors (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.),
the second processor,
and hardware generating input data to be input to the one or more first networks,
and the application element includes at least one of
a rate of the output data,
a transmission size (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.),
and a processing cost in the application.
Regarding Claim 7, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the one or more first networks and the second network based on the required performance and a key performance indicator for a predetermined network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The key performance indicator is the upload/download speed. The required performance is the intended usage.).
Regarding Claim 9, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines processing by the one or more first networks and processing by the second network such that the processing by the second network is executed as a pipeline process on the processing by each of the one or more first networks (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The second network is executed as a pipeline process because it is executed subsequently to the first network failing, and therefore performed later in the pipeline than the first network. The flowchart of Fig. 4 is viewed as a pipeline that is repeated each time a network connection fails.).
Regarding Claim 10, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mineikis further teaches wherein one or more first functions for input data is applied to the one or more first networks on a one-to-one basis, the input data being input to the one or more first networks included in a predetermined network, and a second function for a processing result of the first function is applied to the second network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis).).
Regarding Claim 11, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines each of the one or more first functions according to the second function (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis). The first function is determined in accordance to the second function if the connection is unsuccessful in step 413.).
Regarding Claim 12, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller updates or changes the second function according to a learning result of the second network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis). The first function is determined in accordance to the second function if the connection is unsuccessful in step 413. The second function can be changed to determining a successful connection in step 415 if it failed in step 413 for a previously selected VPN.).
Regarding Claim 13, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines, as the second network, a plurality of the second networks that corresponds on a one-to-one basis to a plurality of the second functions different from each other and is capable of parallel processing (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 120-122; par 134; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis). The second function can be executed for each subsequent VPN server selected after unsuccessfully connecting in step 413. The second function is viewed as a plurality when being executed several times. The processor is capable of parallel processing as stated in paragraph 120.).
Regarding Claim 14, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 13.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the plurality of second networks so as to commonly input an output of one of the one or more first networks (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 120-122; par 134; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis). The second function can be executed for each subsequent VPN server selected after unsuccessfully connecting in step 413. The second function is viewed as a plurality when being executed several times. The first network can further be viewed as several VPN servers being selected and failing to connect, before a second VPN server is selected and is successful in connecting.).
Regarding Claim 15, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein as the one or more first networks, a plurality of the first networks that corresponds on a one-to-one basis to the one or more first functions different from each other and is capable of parallel processing is determined (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 120-122; par 134; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis). The second function can be executed for each subsequent VPN server selected after unsuccessfully connecting in step 413. The second function is viewed as a plurality when being executed several times. The first network can further be viewed as several VPN servers being selected and failing to connect, before a second VPN server is selected and is successful in connecting. The processor is capable of parallel processing as stated in paragraph 120.).
Regarding Claim 16, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the second network so as to receive an output of each of the one or more first networks (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 120-122; par 134; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis). The second function can be executed for each subsequent VPN server selected after unsuccessfully connecting in step 413. The second function is viewed as a plurality when being executed several times. The first network can further be viewed as several VPN servers being selected and failing to connect, before a second VPN server is selected and is successful in connecting.).
Regarding Claim 17, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines each of the one or more first networks giving priority to speed with respect to processing of each of the one or more first functions (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 120-122; par 130; par 134; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. Intended network usage of the user may include upload/download speeds which may be used to receive an updated list of VPN servers.),
and determines the second network giving priority to at least one of accuracy and a function with respect to processing of the second function (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 120-122; par 134; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure. The first function is the checking of the connection of a VPN server, such as the first VPN server. The second function is the determining that the connection of the VPN server is successful or unsuccessful in step 411, such as after the second VPN server is selected. The function with respect to processing the second function is reporting of the success or failure in steps 413 and 415.).
Regarding Claim 18, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 17.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the one or more first networks and the second network so as to retrain the one or more first networks based on a processing result of the second network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails.).
Regarding Claim 19, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the one or more first networks and the second network so as to reduce data output from the one or more first networks and input the data reduced to the second network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The data is reduced because there is 1 less server being inputted into the loop each time a server connection fails.).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, Mineikis teaches an information processing system comprising an information processing apparatus including: one or more first processors different from each other (Fig. 8, element 802, par 99),
the one or more first processors being configured to execute on a one-to-one basis one or more first networks selected from a plurality of networks (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 99-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. Each VPN server/network is executed one at a time (one-to-one basis).);
a processor configured to execute a second network selected from the plurality of networks (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails.);
a controller configured to select the one or more first networks from the plurality of networks and select the second network from the plurality of networks (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails.);
and a transmission unit configured to transmit the one or more first networks to the one or more first processors on a one-to-one basis and transmit the second network to the processor (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails.),
wherein the processor executes the second network using output data as an input, the output data being output as a result of executing a network selected from the one or more first networks for at least one processor among the one or more first processors (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.),
and the controller selects, from the plurality of networks, the second network according to the output data (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails. The output data is the reported connection failure.).
Mineikis does not explicitly teach one or more first processors different from each other; a second processor.
Bernardin teaches one or more first processors different from each other (par 16);
second processor (par 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis with the peer-to-peer networking of Bernadin because it reduces load on the central server and reduces latency.
Regarding Claim 23, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing system according to claim 22.
Mineikis further teaches wherein at least one processor of the one or more first processors and the second processor are configured in a same housing (Fig. 8, element 802, par 99).
Regarding Claim 24, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing system according to claim 22.
Mineikis does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more first processors is configured in a first housing and the second processor is configured in a second housing.
Bernardin wherein at least one of the one or more first processors is configured in a first housing and the second processor is configured in a second housing (par 16-17; Each processor is in a different computing device in the peer-to-peer computer network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis with the peer-to-peer networking of Bernadin because it reduces load on the central server and reduces latency.
Regarding Claim 25, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing system according to claim 22.
Mineikis teaches further comprising a sensor device configured to output input data input to the one or more first networks (Fig. 8, elements [802, 804} par 148-149; par 99).
Regarding Claim 26, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing system according to claim 25.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the sensor device and at least one processor of the one or more first processors are integrally configured (Fig. 8, elements [802, 804} par 148-149; par 99).
Regarding Claim 27, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing system according to claim 22.
Mineikis does not explicitly teach wherein the second processor and each of the one or more first processors are connected via a communication network.
Bernardin teaches wherein the second processor and each of the one or more first processors are connected via a communication network (par 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis with the peer-to-peer networking of Bernadin because it reduces load on the central server and reduces latency.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mineikis and Bernardin in view of Betzler et al (“Betzler”, US 20100122328).
Regarding Claim 8, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Mineikis further teaches wherein the controller determines the one or more first networks and the second network so as to perform an operation in the one or more first networks and an operation in the second network (Fig. 4, elements {401-415}, par 100-105; par 121-122; par 144-145; The first network is the first VPN server selected. The second network selected is the second VPN server selected after step 413 when the connection to the first server selected fails.).
Mineikis and Bernardin do not explicitly teach a fixed point operation; a floating point operation.
Betzler teaches a fixed point operation (par 29);
a floating point operation (par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis and Bernardin with the decimal values of Betzler because it ensures greater accuracy and precision when making calculations.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mineikis and Bernardin in view of Amron (“Amron”, US 20120072340).
Regarding Claim 28, Mineikis and Bernardin teach the information processing system according to claim 22.
Mineikis teaches further comprising an other information processing apparatus different from the information processing apparatus (Fig. 1, elements {102, 104}, par 33; The information processing apparatus is the user device 102. The other information processing apparatus is the VPN service provider infrastructure 104.).
Mineikis does not explicitly teach the other information processing apparatus being provided with an application configured to execute processing on the output data that is output from the second processor.
Bernardin teaches second processor (par 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis with the peer-to-peer networking of Bernadin because it reduces load on the central server and reduces latency.
Mineikis and Bernardin do not explicitly teach the other information processing apparatus being provided with an application configured to execute processing on the output data that is output from the processor.
Amron teaches the other information processing apparatus being provided with an application configured to execute processing on the output data that is output from the second processor (par 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mineikis and Bernardin with the SMS connectivity of Amron because it enables connection between devices when outside the range of a wired or shorter wireless connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kono et al (US 20180285168), Abstract - An information processing apparatus is included in an information processing system, constructed with a plurality of information processing apparatuses and configured to aggregate state information indicating a state of each of the plurality of information processing apparatuses which is acquired by the each information processing apparatus. The information processing apparatus includes a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: transmit the state information of the each information processing apparatus to a first information processing apparatus which is one of the plurality of information processing apparatuses; and transmit the state information of the each information processing apparatus to a second information processing apparatus different from the first information processing apparatus among the plurality of information processing apparatuses, when a notification indicating that an aggregation process of aggregating the state information of the each information processing apparatus is not executable is received from the first information processing apparatus.
Takehara et al (US 20140244846), Abstract - There is provided an information processing apparatus including a determination unit that determines whether to change a number of processes allocated to one or more program modules, based on a measurement result of a load of each program module when the program modules that form an application are executed using scalable processing resources.
Hirose (US 20130318528), Abstract - An information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus. The information processing includes: running a virtual machine that emulates an idle state of other information apparatus; powering on the other information apparatus when receiving a process execution request issued to the running virtual machine; and transferring the received execution request to the powered-on other information apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444