CTNF 18/977,434 CTNF 80753 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1 – 20 are pending. This action is in response to the communication filed on 12/11/24. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the applicant fails to describe the process to “… transmit … encrypted data over a unsecure channel …”. The examiner notes that the use of encryption is one way that those of ordinary skill in the art recognize channels as “secure” (e.g. see Microsoft Computer Dictionary, “secure channel”, pg. 590). The applicant’s claims and disclosure recite the transmission of encrypted data – an thus by definition, a “secure” channel. The applicant fails to disclose how the transmission of encrypted data is over a “unsecure” channel. Furthermore, the applicant fails to disclose the meaning of a “unsecure channel”. The examiner notes that there is no standard meaning within the art for the term “unsecure channel”. As the notion of “security” is both relative and subjective in nature – i.e. there is no such thing as absolute security or insecurity – and what may be “secure” for one person may be unsatisfactory or “unsecure” for another. Thus, it is incumbent upon the applicant to disclose the features for which the applicant believes any particular channel to be “unsecure”. However, the applicant’s own disclosure only comprises a single usage of the term “unsecure channel”, and the applicant never explains what particularly makes the claimed channel to be “unsecure”. Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the recitation of “… transmit … encrypted data over a unsecure channel …” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. The examiner notes that the use of encryption is one way that those of ordinary skill in the art recognize channels as “secure” (e.g. see Microsoft Computer Dictionary, “secure channel”, pg. 590). The applicant’s claims and disclosure recite the transmission of encrypted data – an thus by definition, a “secure” channel. Thus, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how a channel comprising encrypted data is to be considered “unsecure”. Furthermore, the examiner notes that there is no standard meaning within the art for the term “unsecure channel”. As the notion of “security” is both relative and subjective in nature – i.e. there is no such thing as absolute security or insecurity – and what may be “secure” for one person may be unsatisfactory or “unsecure” for another. Thus, it is incumbent upon the applicant to disclose the features for which the applicant believes any particular channel to be “unsecure”. However, the applicant’s own disclosure only comprises a single usage of the term “unsecure channel”, and the applicant never explains what particularly (in the applicant’s own opinion) makes the claimed channel to be “unsecure”. Therefore, it is not clear to one of ordinary skill the art as to what subject matter (i.e. “channels”) falls within or outside of the scope of “unsecure”. Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et a. (Ha), “Adaptive VM Handoff Across Cloudlets”, in view of Rozas et al. (Rozas), US 2018/0004683 A1 . Regarding claim 1, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies in clarity, Ha discloses: An edge computing system (e.g. Ha, pg. 1:Introduction, par. 1; fig. 4) , comprising: communication circuitry configured to receive and transmit communications with a plurality of edge computing nodes (e.g. Ha, fig. 4; pg. 1:section 1, par. 1, 2; pg. 6, 7: sections 4 and 4.1; pg. 15:section 5 – herein circuitry is disclosed for transmitting data between edge computing elements of a cellular network, i.e. cloudlets) ; and processing circuitry configured to: … receive a workload migration indication (e.g. Ha, pg. 7, sect. 4.1, par. 3; pg. 15, sect. 5.1, par. 1 – live migration mechanism to issue command) ; and transmit, in response to the workload migration indication, the … data over an unsecure channel to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, Abstract; pg. 1, Introduction, par. 1, 2; pg. 4, 5, sect. 3.2, par. 1, 2; sect. 4.1) . Ha discloses the migration of a VM workload from one cloudlet to another cloudlet. However, Ha does not appear to explicitly teach security features, such as encrypting the VM data. However, like Ha, Rozas also teaches the migration of VM workloads (e.g. Rozas, Abstract; fig. 2; par. 42). Furthermore, Rozas teaches that VM workload data should be encrypted for the purpose of increased security (e.g. Rozas, par. 33, 34, 47) and furthermore that, for the purposes of migration, the encryption keys should be transferred to the migration destination (e.g. Rozas, par. 40, 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the data encryption and key migration teachings of Rozas within the system of Ha because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that data encryption and key migration provides confidentiality and security to a user’s data (e.g. Rozas, Abstract; par. 33, 34). Thus, the combination enables a system wherein “…encrypted data…” of the VM workload is transmitted from a source cloudlet to the destination cloudlet, and furthermore: … perform data encryption, to create encrypted data for a workload in a local data store in a source cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 3.2; sect. 4.1; Rozas, par. 48) ; transfer keys for the encrypted data to a destination cloudlet from the source cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 3.2; sect. 4.1; Rozas, par. 40, 48) . Regarding claim 2, the combination enables: wherein the encrypted data is transferred to working memory from the local data store in an encrypted state (e.g. Ha, fig. 3; sect. 3.2; Rozas, par. 47 – 50) . Regarding claim 3, the combination enables: wherein the source cloudlet uses a total memory encryption circuitry to decrypt the encrypted data when the data is transferred to a processor from the working memory (e.g. Ha, fig. 3; sect. 3.2; Rozas, par. 34, 47 – 50) . Regarding claim 4, the combination enables: wherein a portion of the encrypted data is not transferred as part of the workload migration, and wherein the portion is determined by profiling data use by the workload (e.g. Ha, sect. 3.2 – partial data migration based upon performance considerations and/or Ha, sect. 4.1; 4.2; 4.4.2 fig. 9 – delta transmission of VM workload data based upon the characteristics of the data) . Regarding claim 5, the combination enables: wherein the plurality of edge computing nodes are network peers in a layer of a distributed edge computing system (e.g. Ha, Introduction –base station “cloudlets” of MEC network) . Regarding claim 6, the combination enables: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a cloudlet migration signal at the source cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.1 – migration command) ; analyze computation components of the source cloudlet to produce a data gravity metric (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.4; sect. 4.4.1; sect. 4.4.2 – data volume or size metrics and delta encoding) ; move a first component, in response to a first data gravity value for the first component being below a threshold, to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, fig. 8; sect. 4.2; sect. 4.6 – deduplication and iterative transfer for first, second, third blocks, i.e. “first, second, third, etc.” components, of the VM workload) ; refrain from moving a second component, in response to a second data gravity value for the second component being above the threshold, to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.6 – deduplication and iterative transfer) ; and provide an interface for the second component to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.3 – data pipeline, i.e. “interface”, for the eventual transmission of the “second component” to the destination cloudlet) . Regarding claim 7, the combination enables: wherein the source cloudlet is at a first base station, and wherein the destination cloudlet is at a second base station (e.g. Ha, Introduction –base station “cloudlets” of MEC network) . Regarding claim 8, the combination enables: wherein the cloudlet migration signal is in response to a hand-off of user equipment from the first base station to the second base station, and wherein the user equipment is using services of the first cloudlet prior to the hand-off (e.g. Ha, Abstract; Introduction; sect. 3.2; sect. 4.1) . Regarding claim 9, the combination enables: wherein the data gravity is based on a size of data used by the second component (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.4; sect. 4.4.1; sect. 4.4.2) . Regarding claim 10, the combination enables: wherein the data gravity is further based on a computation of the data size (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.4.1) , the computation being at least one of a count of resources to move the data to the destination cloudlet or a cost to move the data to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.4.2) . Regarding claims 11 – 20, they are method and medium claims, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons. And furthermore because regarding claim 16, the combination enables … . At least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereupon … (e.g. Ha, fig. 4; pg. 1:section 1, par. 1, 2; pg. 6, 7: sections 4 and 4.1; pg. 15:section 5) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : See Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 2 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 3 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 4 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 5 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 6 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 7 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 8 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 9 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 10 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 18/977,434 Page 11 Art Unit: 2495
Prosecution Insights