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 4/21/25 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0327371 by Sharma et al. (Sharma).
With respect to claim 1, Sharma teaches 1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a first edge compute site of a telecommunications network, raw data from a first device over a first access network; (Paragraphs 231-236, Fig. 8, 9 – cloud edge compute site receives raw data such as sensor data used by a corresponding edge site that includes a local model)
determining, by the first edge compute site, that the raw data needs to be modified for consumption by a first model; (Paragraphs 231-236, Fig. 8, 9 - based on an initiated model update request, cloud site determines to process the received raw data)
modifying the raw data to generate modified data; (Paragraphs 231-236, Fig. 8, 9 - cloud site processes the received raw data to produce modified data such as inferences and predictions)
modifying the first model using the modified data to generate a modified first model; (Paragraphs 231-236, Fig. 8, 9 - based on a comparison of the resulting modified data with received outputs from the edge device, an update to the model can be made. Other examples include comparisons of multiple models for finding the best performance/accuracy)
sending the modified first model to at least one device connected to the first edge compute site; (Paragraphs 231-236, Fig. 8, 9 - updated model is redeployed to edge )and
using the modified first model to automatically affect operation of at least one of the first edge compute site or the at least one device. (Paragraphs 231-236, Fig. 8, 9 - updated model is redeployed to edge and subsequently used by the edge for processing data locally)
With respect to claim 2, Sharma teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the first edge compute site, second modified data related to a second model, from a second edge compute site. (Paragraph 81, 124, 236 – cloud site manages provisioning and orchestration of one or more edge computing platforms. Accordingly the updating process can occur for other cloud managed edge platforms as described in the rejection of claim 1.)
With respect to claim 3, Sharma teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: modifying the second model at the first edge compute site; and providing, by the first edge compute site, the modified second model to the second device. (Paragraph 81, 124, 236 – cloud site manages provisioning and orchestration of one or more edge computing platforms. Accordingly the updating process can occur for other cloud managed edge platforms as described in the rejection of claim 1.)
With respect to claim 9, Sharma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the raw data comprises extracting feature pairs from the raw data. (Paragraph 102, 172 – processing of raw data can include extraction of feature pairs)
Claims 10-12 are similar in scope to claims 1-3 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of US 9,294,507 by Roth et al. (Roth).
With respect to claim 4, Sharma teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose evaluating the second modified data to determine a security value for the second modified data; based on determining the security value, determining, by the first compute site, whether to provide the second modified data to the second device.
Roth teaches data can be associated with a security value which can determine whether the data can be provided to other devices (Col. 4 lines 8-15, Col. 5 lines 15-38 security tag associated with data can restrict transmission of the data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the data of Sharma include a security value as in Roth. One would be motivated to have this as it is advantageous to be able secure data that is of sensitive nature.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of US 2019/0036716 by Kasaragod et al. (Kasaragod).
With respect to claim 5, Sharma teaches the method of claim 2, but does not disclose providing the second modified data by the first edge compute site to the second device over the first access network.
Kasaragod teaches edge compute sites may form tiers such that data may be modified at one site and sending that modified data to another device. (Fig. 13 paragraphs 139-146). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the compute site of Sharma provide the modified data to another device as in Kasaragod. One would be motivated to have this for providing redundancy as well as dynamic levels of accuracy and processing power (Kasaragod Paragraphs 141, 143).
With respect to claim 6, Sharma teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from a network orchestration system at the first edge compute site the modified first model to the second device. (Paragraph 81, 124, 236 – cloud site manages provisioning and orchestration of one or more edge computing platforms. Accordingly the updating process can occur for other cloud managed edge platforms as described in the rejection of claim 1.)
Sharma does not explicitly disclose instructions to provide the modified data to a second edge compute site. Kasaragod teaches edge compute sites may form tiers such that data may be modified at one site and sending that modified data to another device. (Fig. 13 paragraphs 139-146). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the compute site of Sharma provide the modified data to another device as in Kasaragod. One would be motivated to have this for providing redundancy as well as dynamic levels of accuracy and processing power (Kasaragod Paragraphs 141, 143).
With respect to claim 7, Sharma as modified teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving updated instructions from the network orchestration system at the first edge compute site to no longer provide updates to modified data or the modified first model to the second edge compute site. (Based on the Combination in claim 6, Kasaragod teaches in paragraph 142-153 various decision points determining whether to send data to a higher tier or not)
With respect to claim 8, Sharma as modified teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving, from the network orchestration system at the first edge compute site, instructions to provide the raw data to a third edge compute site but not provide the raw data to the second edge compute site. (Based on the Combination in claim 6, Kasaragod teaches in paragraph 142-153 various decision points determining whether to send data to a higher tier or not)
Claims 14-17 are similar in scope to claims 5-8 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528,193. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. patent 11,528,193 contain every element of claims 1-19 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-19 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." In re Lonqi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,750,469. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. patent 11,750,469 contain every element of claims 1-19 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-19 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." In re Lonqi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,090. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-18 of U.S. patent 12,284,090 contain every element of claims 1-17 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-17 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." In re Lonqi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights