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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the amendment filed on 03/06/2026. Claims 1, 3-5 are amended. Examiner withdraws 35 USC 112(f) as necessary corrections were made to the claims. Examiner further withdraws 35 USC 101 rejection.
1-5 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 and 03/09/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 12/08/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranabahu et al (US Patent 10,747,390) hereafter Ranabahu, and in view of Sanders et al. (US Publication 2018/0013637) hereafter Sanders.
As per claims 1, and 4, Ranabahu discloses a network node, a communication method comprising: a receiver configured to receive a request for discovering a computing resource that is configured for a subscriber from another computing resource that is configured for the subscriber or from another network node (2:52-67, 3:1-45, 6: 32-60, wherein it emphasizes receiving an access request for computing resources which is processed by a policy management service for a client. The policy management service configures the access request for the client); a transmitter configured to transmit information indicating properties of the computing resource to the another computing resource or to the another network node; and a processor configured to manage at least one Computing Resource Management Function (CRMF) session (5:19-67, 6:1-31, 9:50-67, 10:1-7, 11:51-67, wherein it elaborates that the policy management service receives the properties and criteria of the computing resources. Then, the policy management service manages to access management of the computing resources according to the properties of the computing resources). Although, Ranabahu describes access management according to the computing resources management policy and which should be interpreted by any ordinary skill in the art as manage a Computing Resource Management Function (CRMF) session. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sanders more specifically discloses Computing Resource Management Function (CRMF) (paragraphs: 8, and 84-86).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Sanders’s teachings of Computing Resource Management Function with the teachings of Ranabahu, for the purpose of effectively accessing to the computing resources.
As per claim 2, Ranabahu and in view of Sanders discloses the network node, wherein the information indicating properties of the computing resource includes information indicating an address of a communication destination of the computing resource (Ranabahu, 29:9-54).
As per claim 3, Ranabahu and in view of Sanders discloses the network node, wherein the receiver receives a request for registering the information indicating properties of the computing resource, and the processor is configured to perform control of storing the information indicating properties of the computing resource (Ranabahu, 25:20-37, and 26:5-22).
As per claim 5, Ranabahu and in view of Sanders the network node, wherein the reception unit receiver receives a request for registering the information indicating properties of the computing resource, and the network node further comprising: a control unit processor is configured to perform control of storing the information indicating properties of the computing resource (Ranabahu, 25:20-37, and 26:5-22).
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Collins et al (US Publication 2018/0089299): discusses resource data objects describing resources in a system may be maintained in multiple different hierarchies for applying policies to manage the resources. Lookup requests may access the different hierarchies to determine which policies are applicable to a given resource based on the policies identified in each of the hierarchies. Modifications to hierarchies may be performed in isolation so that the application of policies in other hierarchies is unchanged by modifications to a different hierarchy. Access restrictions may be enforced with respect to hierarchies so that different users may be permitted access to different hierarchies for system resource management.
Thomas (US Publication 2014/0310401): elaborates that managing a set of computing resources accessible to a client via a network. The method comprises monitoring computing resources of the set of computing resources and managing the computing resources in accordance with a set of computing resource guidelines. The method further comprises generating, based on the steps of monitoring and managing, a computer resource configuration change request, the request identifying a computing resource, identifying, from the identified computing resource, a client associated with the resource, determining whether the requested configuration change request is compatible with a client service level agreement, SLA, associated with the identified client; and, where it is so determined, authorizing the requested configuration change request to be made.
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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights