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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/890,973 filed on 09/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/20/2024, 12/30/2025 and 01/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedini et al. (US 2014/0297833 A1); in view of Yarvis et al. (US 2019/0041830 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bedini discloses a method for managing operation of a distributed system ([paragraph 0021, 0038] describes managing the operation of the distributed system), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a control system of the distributed system, control variables for use in management of the distributed system during a control window ([paragraph 0035-0038, 0057-0059] discloses distributed system includes controller (e.g. a control system) and obtaining control variables that may be used to manage during control time period (e.g. control window);
obtaining, by the control system and using the control variables, choreography instances to be performed by the distributed system ([paragraph 0035-0038, 0057-0059] discloses obtaining, by the controller (e.g. the control system) and using the control variable to increase or decrease the number of tasks performed by different nodes, processes, or nodes, to increase or decrease the number of instances of design process (e.g. choreography instances) that are executing concurrently in the distributed system);
Bedini fails to teach obtaining, by the control system and based on the choreography instances, choreography instructions for the distributed system; updating operation of a device of the distributed system based on the choreography instructions obtain an updated device; and providing, by at least the updated device, computer implemented services during the control window by performing at least one dynamically selected action inferred for performance using the choreography instructions.
However, Yarvis teaches obtaining, by the control system and based on the choreography instances, choreography instructions for the distributed system ([paragraph 0034, 0046] describes control system and distributed system [paragraph 0032-0034, 0154-0157] describes obtaining by the control system orchestration instructions (e.g. choreography instructions) for the distributed system based on the orchestration instances, tasks such as data analytics, data aggregation, and machine-learning, among others (e.g. cryptographic instances));
updating operation of a device of the distributed system based on the choreography instructions obtain an updated device ([paragraph 0043-0046, 0080, 0128-0134] describes updating operation of a device of the distributed system to fulfil services according to orchestration instructions (e.g. choreography instructions) for the distributed system and obtained an updated device);
providing, by at least the updated device, computer implemented services during the control window by performing at least one dynamically selected action inferred for performance using the choreography instructions ([paragraph 0055, 0081-0083, 0095, 0105-0106, 0157] describes the updated device providing cloud computing implemented services during control strategy execution window by performing dynamically selected action to achieve performance using orchestration instructions (e.g. choreography instructions) such as Orchestration 620 also may be dynamic to allow functional blocks to be migrated upon failure of a computational resource, without requiring a system-wide restart. In addition, updates to the implementation of a component may be pushed, causing code to be updated as needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bedini to include obtaining, by the control system and based on the choreography instances, choreography instructions for the distributed system; updating operation of a device of the distributed system based on the choreography instructions obtain an updated device; and providing, by the updated device, computer implemented services during the control window by performing dynamically selected action inferred for performance using the choreography instructions as taught by Yarvis. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedini in the Yarvis system in order to take advantage of the latest information technology advancements ([paragraph 0003] in Yarvis).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bedini and Yarvis teaches the method, wherein the choreography instances define group activity to be performed by multiple devices of the distributed system (Yarvis: [paragraph 0083, 0137, 0157-0158] describes orchestration instances, tasks such as data analytics, data aggregation, and machine-learning, among others (e.g. cryptographic instances) define IoT devices may include any number of different types of devices such as sensors, actuators, and other input/output components, such as to collect data or perform actions from a real world environment, grouped in various combinations. For example, a traffic control group may include IoT devices along streets in a city. These IoT devices may include stoplights, traffic flow monitors, cameras, weather sensors, and the like. The traffic control group 2006, or other subgroups, may be in communication with the cloud).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bedini to include wherein the choreography instances define group activity to be performed by multiple devices of the distributed system as taught by Yarvis. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedini in the Yarvis system in order to address critical infrastructure requirements such as high availability of the platform and workloads, continuous 24/7 operation, determinism/latency, high performance, real-time virtualization, scalability, upgradeability, and security ([paragraph 0056] in Yarvis).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bedini and Yarvis teaches the method, wherein different choreography instructions are required to be distributed to different devices of the multiple devices of the distributed system to implement one of the choreography instances (Yarvis: [paragraph 0083, 0137, 0157-0158] describes different orchestration instructions (e.g. choreography instructions) for the distributed system are required for to be distributed to different IoT devices may include any number of different types of devices such as sensors, actuators, and other input/output components, such as to collect data or perform actions from a real world environment, grouped in various combinations of the distributed system to implement orchestration instances, tasks such as data analytics, data aggregation, and machine-learning, among others (e.g. cryptographic instance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bedini to include wherein different choreography instructions are required to be distributed to different devices of the multiple devices of the distributed system to implement one of the choreography instances as taught by Yarvis. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedini in the Yarvis system in order to address critical infrastructure requirements such as high availability of the platform and workloads, continuous 24/7 operation, determinism/latency, high performance, real-time virtualization, scalability, upgradeability, and security ([paragraph 0056] in Yarvis).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bedini and Yarvis teaches the method, wherein the choreography instructions define dynamic activity to be performed by the device during the control window (Yarvis: [paragraph 0083, 0095, 0137] describes orchestration instructions (e.g. choreography instructions) for the distributed system defined application to be performed dynamic activity by the device in the orchestration scenario (applications 1 to 4) are specified to run at different frequencies. In this example, the cycle and runtime dependencies are major factors in orchestration decisions at runtime during control window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bedini to include wherein the choreography instructions define dynamic activity to be performed by the device during the control window as taught by Yarvis. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedini in the Yarvis system in order to address critical infrastructure requirements such as high availability of the platform and workloads, continuous 24/7 operation, determinism/latency, high performance, real-time virtualization, scalability, upgradeability, and security ([paragraph 0056] in Yarvis).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bedini and Yarvis teaches the method, wherein the dynamic activity is to be performed independently from control by the control system during the control window (Yarvis: [paragraph 0083, 0095-0097, 0137] describes orchestration instructions (e.g. choreography instructions) for the distributed system defined application to be performed dynamic activity by the device independently from control by the control system in the orchestration scenario (applications 1 to 4) are specified to run at different frequencies. In this example, the cycle and runtime dependencies are major factors in orchestration decisions at runtime during control window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bedini to include wherein the dynamic activity is to be performed independently from control by the control system during the control window as taught by Yarvis. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bedini in the Yarvis system in order to address critical infrastructure requirements such as high availability of the platform and workloads, continuous 24/7 operation, determinism/latency, high performance, real-time virtualization, scalability, upgradeability, and security ([paragraph 0056] in Yarvis).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bedini and Yarvis teaches the method, wherein the choreography instances are further obtained using information regarding a local zone in which the device is positioned (Bedini: [paragraph 0035-0038] describes increase or decrease the number of tasks performed by different nodes, processes, or nodes, to increase or decrease the number of instances of design process (e.g. choreography instances) are obtained from local controller device which is implemented in local area).
Regarding claims 9-14, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 1-6 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Regarding claims 17-20, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 1-4 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Metsch et al., US 2022/0124009 A1, Various systems and methods for implementing intent-based orchestration in heterogenous compute platforms are described herein.
- Costello et al., US 2023/0342126 A1, Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a system, method and framework that facilitate and simplify computing solutions requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights