DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in the present application. A preliminary amendment was filed 05 June 2025. Claims 1-20 were cancelled; and new claims 21-40 were added.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21-40 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.
Regarding claim 21, the following limitation is vague: a first directive. It is vague as to weather the first directive is a “@live directive”. Note support for this feature can be found in the title, abstract, paragraphs 0016, and 0175.
The limitations of claims 30 and 39 parallel claim 21; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 22-29, 31-38, and 40 are rejected based on dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 30, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernoth et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0084151 A1 in view of Dan O’Keeffe et al. Frontier: Resilient Edge Processing for the Internet of Things.
Regarding claim 21, Bernoth et al. teaches the following:
A method, comprising at one or more graph router computing devices [note: Abstract, ” Mitigating network saturation includes detecting reconnection of device to network after a period of disconnection.” ]:
establishing, at a first graph router computing device of the one or more graph router computing devices, a connection with a client computing device via a communications network [note: paragraph 0032, device 132 (i.e. graph router); paragraph 0067 network includes router; paragraphs 0056-0057 continuously updated];
obtaining, at the first graph router computing device via the communications network, a request from the client computing device specifying, via a first directive, particular content to be kept current at the client computing device [note figure 3; paragraphs 0056-0057 disconnect and reconnecting];
detecting a disconnection of the client computing device [see paragraphs 0056-0060];
maintaining the particular content to be kept current in a storage coupled to the one or more graph router computing devices [note: paragraphs 0056-0060, updates];
detecting a reconnection of the client computing device via the communications network [note figure 3], (312) reconnection detection]; and
responsive at least in part to detecting the reconnection, providing an update with respect to the particular content to be kept current to the client computing device via the communications network [note figure 3, (318) querying, (324) transfer queue; paragraph 0039 route data and messages].
Although Bernoth et al. teach the invention, they do not explicitly state that the computing device is the graph router. They do teach a computing device and that the device allows for routers [note paragraph 0067]. O’Keeffe et al. further describes that a computing device is a graph router computing device [note page 1181-1182, section, 3.4 Frontier Design, “RDG router” ]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since they are both directed toward optimized network connectivity and maintaining a current routing state of the data.
The limitations of claims 30 and 39 parallel claim 21; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-29, 31-38, and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights