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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 12/29/2025. Claims 16-19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 16-26 (claims 21-26 are withdrawn) are pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al (Pub. No. US 2020/0167196).
As per claim 16, Crowder discloses a method for data transmission in a content delivery network (…edge computing, at a general level, refers to the transition of compute and storage resources closer to endpoint devices (e.g., consumer computing devices, user equipment, etc.) in order to optimize total cost of ownership, reduce application latency, improve service capabilities, and improve compliance with security or data privacy requirements. Edge computing may, in some scenarios, provide a cloud-like distributed service that offers orchestration and management for applications among many types of storage and compute resources. As a result, some implementations of edge computing have been referred to as the “edge cloud” or the “fog”, as powerful computing resources previously available only in large remote data centers are moved closer to endpoints and made available for use by consumers at the “edge” of the network…see par. 3), comprising: generating, at a client device, a target management script comprising an instruction to be executed by the content delivery network (…the endpoint device requests execution of a workload by providing a request to the orchestrator…the endpoint device, such as a user device, may request workload execution by providing a description of a workload, such as an executable data structure, metadata used to execute a workload, terms regarding performance targets and/or resource usage targets, etc… examples of workloads to be executed in an edge environment (e.g., via an EaaS, via an edge service, on an EPH node, etc.) include, but are not limited to, autonomous driving computations, video surveillance monitoring, machine learning model executions, and real time data analytics…see par. 34, 74); transmitting the target management script by the client device to a server of the content delivery network (…the endpoint device requests execution of a workload by providing a request to the orchestrator…the endpoint device, such as a user device, may request workload execution by providing a description of a workload, such as an executable data structure, metadata used to execute a workload, terms regarding performance targets and/or resource usage targets, etc…see par. 74); wherein the server is configured to distribute the target management script to a plurality of edge devices in the content delivery network based on receiving the target management script (see par. 50, 61); sending, to the server, a request to access a first log that comprises information associated with execution of the target management script in a corresponding trusted execution environment by the plurality of edge devices (…a blockchain node (e.g., the blockchain node) maintains records and/or logs of actions occurring in the environments…the blockchain node may include a Merkle tree, and the blockchain node may supply proof of delivery of a contract, bid, offer, result, etc., for parties involved in transactions, such as the endpoint device, the orchestrator, the edge node, and/or any devices included in the environments…the edge node may notify receipt of a workload description to the blockchain node…any of the orchestrators, the workload schedulers, and/or the edge nodes may provide records of actions and/or tokens to the blockchain nodes…see par. 61); obtaining the first log from the server in response to sending the request to access the first log; and obtaining, from a log database, a second log (see par. 55-56) of at least one management script executed in the corresponding trusted execution environment of the plurality of edge devices (…hardware capabilities included in an edge service (e.g., INTEL® SOFTWARE GUARD EXTENSIONS, INTEL® TRUSTED EXECUTION TECHNOLOGY, etc.) may scale and protect the authenticity of contracts (e.g., a smart contract) while preserving decentralization of the edge environment and confidentiality of handling business data during an execution of a workload…see par. 50…a blockchain node maintains records and/or logs of actions occurring in the environments…the blockchain node may include a Merkle tree, and the blockchain node may supply proof of delivery of a contract, bid, offer, result, etc., for parties involved in transactions, such as the endpoint device, the orchestrator, the edge node, and/or any devices included in the environments…for example, the edge node may notify receipt of a workload description to the blockchain node…any of the orchestrators, the workload schedulers and/or the edge nodes may provide records of actions and/or tokens to the blockchain nodes…the controller and/or the node scheduler may contribute a finalization of the workload to a log and/or a blockchain, such as a blockchain maintained by the blockchain nodes…see par. 116…hardware-signed telemetry logs included in a blockchain log and/or a blockchain node…see par. 50).
As per claim 17, Smith does not explicitly disclose wherein the target orchestration script is transmitted to the server through a secure file transfer protocol or an application programming interface call (see par. 159).
As per claim 20, Smith discloses sending, to the log database, a request to access the second log, wherein obtaining the second log comprises: obtaining the second log from the log database in response to sending the request to access the second log (see par. 50, 55-56).
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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (Pub. No. US 2020/0167196) in view of Hecht (Pub. No. US 2022/0129564).
As per claim 18, Smith does not explicitly disclose sending, to the server, a request for transmitting the target orchestration script; and receiving, from the server, a response for transmitting the target orchestration script. Hecht discloses sending, to the server, a request for transmitting the target orchestration script; and receiving, from the server, a response for transmitting the target orchestration script (see par. 56). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Hecht in view of Smith for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve security and efficiency of security vulnerabilities in computing resources…see Hecht, par. 34.
As per claim 19, the combination of Smith and Hecht discloses wherein the at least one orchestration script is provided by the client device, and the at least one orchestration script comprises the target orchestration script (Hecht: see par. 66-67). The motivation for claim 19 is the same motivation as in claim 18 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to data transmission in a content delivery network.
Marie et al (Pub. No. US 2023/0370456); “Systems, Methods, and Storage Media for Controlling User Access to an Application”;
-Teaches the authentication may include receiving application identity information at the identity provider from the user, wherein the authentication may include authenticating the user with the application based at least in part on the application identity information…see par. 14.
Kim et al (Pub. No. US 2022/0398119); “Apparatus and Method for Providing Virtual Multi-Cloud Service”;
-Teaches a multi-cloud service management platform may make control and service requests using the same method for heterogeneous cloud services through an integrated multi-cloud management platform that is capable of controlling a private cloud or multiple commercial clouds in an integrated manner…see par. 48.
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 GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights