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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/25/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, 11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acar (20160191642 A1).
As per claims 1, 11, Acar discloses A distributed computing platform and non-transitory computer readable storage media (CRSM), comprising:
A plurality of hardware computing devices, each comprising non-transitory computer readable storage media, one or more hardware computer processors, and one or more network communication modules (paragraphs [0002-3, 0041]);
Software modules, stored on each of the hardware computing devices, that, when executed by the hardware computer processors:
Enable automatic discovery of each of the hardware computing devices by each of the other hardware computing devices (paragraphs [0005, 0079, 0083-84], Smart phone discovers mesh node);
Cause the hardware computing devices to form a mesh communications network (paragraphs [0015, 0041-42]);
Cause the hardware computer processors to form a cluster computing platform for collective executing an end user software application stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage media (paragraphs [0041, 0069, 0125]).
As per claim 19, Acar discloses The CRSM of claim 11, wherein:
the plurality of hardware computing devices collectively form compute resources for executing the one or more end user software applications (paragaphs [0041-42]);
the instructions provide a graphical user interface for end users to manage and allocate the compute resources (paragraphs [0011-12, 0079]).
As per claim 20, Acar discloses The CRSM of claim 19, wherein the graphical user interface provides functionality to allocate processing power, memory, and/or storage provided by the plurality of hardware computing devices for the execution of one or more tasks of the one or more end user software applications (paragraphs [0011-12, 0079]).
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.
Claims 2, 7-8, 12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Acar (20160191642 A1) in view of Rothstein et al. (hereinafter “Roth”, US Patent 8626912 B1).
As per claims 2, 12, Acar does not disclose The platform of claim 1, wherein:
each of the one or more end user software applications includes hardware and software dependencies;
the software modules cause the hardware computer processors to form the cluster computing platform by distributing the hardware and software dependencies of each of the one or more end user software applications to each of the plurality of hardware computing devices.
However, Roth teaches monitoring communication over a network using a network monitoring device to discover devices, roles, application, and application dependencies present on the monitored networks. Determining dependencies among the network devices and applications that are operative on the networks (column 2, lines 13-16, column 6, lines 50-65).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made would have found it obvious to implement or incorporate Roth’s hardware and software dependencies and the software modules cause the hardware computer processors to form the cluster computing platform by distributing the hardware and software dependencies of each of the one or more end user software applications to each of the plurality of hardware computing devices in Acar’s platform to enable the monitoring device may discover that applications are related and/or dependent on each other.
As per claims 7, 17, Acar does not explicitly disclose The platform of claim 1, wherein each hardware computing device: provides an endpoint for receiving data from one or more end user peripheral devices; and provides functionality to process the received data, by the one or more hardware computer processors, in accordance with the one or more end user software applications.
However, Roth teaches communicating with external peripheral devices or other computing devices. Information is routed through human interface components remotely (column 11, lines 48-56, column 14, lines 1-20).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made would have found it obvious to implement or incorporate providing an endpoint for receiving data from one or more end user peripheral device and providing functionality to process the received data, by the one or more hardware computer processors, in accordance with the one or more end user software applications in Acar’s platform to allow communicating for input/output to client devices.
As per claims 8, 18, Acar does not explicitly disclose The platform of claim 7, wherein the one or more end user peripheral devices includes one or more sensors.
However, Roth teaches communicating with external peripheral devices or other computing devices. Information is routed through human interface components remotely (column 11, lines 48-56, column 14, lines 1-20).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made would have found it obvious to implement or incorporate wherein the one or more end user peripheral devices includes one or more sensors in Acar’s platform to allow communicating for input/output to client devices.
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Acar (20160191642 A1) in view of Rothstein et al. (hereinafter “Roth”, US Patent 8626912 B1) and in further view of Campos et al. (hereinafter “Camp”, US Patent 11916747 B1).
As per claims 4, 14, Acar, in view of Roth, does not disclose The platform of claim 2, wherein the cluster computing platform provides functionality to distribute a machine learning model to each of the hardware computing devices and apply the machine learning model by each of the one or more hardware computer processors of each plurality of hardware computing devices.
However, Camp teaches employing machine learning, such as artificial intelligence, when determining communication network characteristics, such as supplement analytical analysis of network characteristics. Machine learning is configured to assist one or more other modules of discovery system using machine learning.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made would have found it obvious to implement or incorporate Camp’s wherein the cluster computing platform provides functionality to distribute a machine learning model to each of the hardware computing devices and apply the machine learning model by each of the one or more hardware computer processors of each plurality of hardware computing devices in Acar’s platform in order to recognize two or more network elements that common share one or more common features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA BURGESS ANYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3996. The examiner can normally be reached IFP M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
June 27, 2026
/BARBARA B Anyan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights