DETAILED ACTION
The non-final office action is responsive to the filing of U.S. Patent Application 19/241,436 on 06/18/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending; claims 1-10 are rejected.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 and 10/11/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a plurality of loT devices, each configured to register a list of providable services with an loT edge device in a same network and receive service execution requests from the loT edge device to process the service execution requests” and “a plurality of loT edge devices, each of which includes middleware that registers and manages services provided by at least one loT device in the same network, sets whether to publish the registered services, and determines whether to provide a requested service based on an access rights when another loT edge device requests the service, wherein the plurality of loT edge devices form a tree-shaped hierarchical structure, an loT edge device having a higher layer forwards a list of published services to an loT edge device in the higher layer, and the loT edge device in the higher layer has the rights to access the services published by the loT edge device in a lower layer” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, as set forth above, the identified claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, one with ordinary skill in the art could not identify a corresponding structure which performs claimed functions. That renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-9 have the limitation from claim 1 and do not remedy the deficiency. Claims 2-9 are rejected under same rationale.
As to claim 1, claim limitation recites “an loT edge device having a higher layer forwards a list of published services to an loT edge device in the higher layer” (emphasis added). It is not clear whether the “an loT edge device in the higher layer” refers to “an loT edge device having a higher layer” or to a different “loT edge device in the higher layer.” That renders the claim indefinite. Examiner assumes that the “an loT edge device in the higher layer” means a different “loT edge device in the higher layer” for examination purpose.
Dependent claims 2-9 have the limitation from claim 1 and do not remedy the deficiency. Claims 2-9 are rejected under same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable over prior art references on record.
Note: the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) need to be overcome in order to allow the case.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the prior art references on record do not disclose “sets whether to publish the registered services, and determines whether to provide a requested service based on an access rights when another loT edge device requests the service, wherein the plurality of loT edge devices form a tree-shaped hierarchical structure, an loT edge device having a higher layer forwards a list of published services to an loT edge device in the higher layer, and the loT edge device in the higher layer has the rights to access the services published by the loT edge device in a lower layer.”
For example, Khalid Mohiuddin, Huda Fatima, Mohiuddin Ali Khan, Mohammad Abdul Khaleel, Osman A. Nasr, Samreen Shahwar, "Mobile learning evolution and emerging computing paradigms: An edge-based cloud architecture for reduced latencies and quick response time", 11/24/2022, ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590005622000923 (hereinafter Mohiuddin) disclose “a novel mobile edge-based hierarchical architecture to optimize m-learning performance efficiency. The architecture’s design follows the ETSI MEC ISG framework and ISG MEC technical requirements. An m-learning use case was executed to evaluate the architecture's performance efficiency in a university facility. The implementation results show reduced latencies and quick response time. The architecture handles data locally on-site, lowers demand on radio access bandwidth, increases confidential data privacy, and continues the application execution even the network is disrupted. The architecture is open to redesign, reconfigure, and integrate with other computing paradigms. IoT based m-learning use cases should be considered by reflecting learners’ scaling of resource needs. Execution of complex use cases will expand the architecture base, MEC-based learning models usage, and change learning-teaching dynamics across educational disciplines.” (see Abstract). Particularly, Mohiuddin discloses “Fig. 2 describes the architecture layer’s development at the mobile base station and shows the edge computing layer and its sub-layers. Further, it shows its components are categorized into the ME system level, the ME host level, and the network level [18]. On top, the system level provides an abstract view of the ME system and accessibility to users’ equipment (UEs). The host-level offers the virtualization environment and possibilities of delivering ME applications. The network-level manages the connectivity requirements via the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) cellular network, local access network, and the external network [29]. (3) Architecture’s functionality: The architecture provides ultra-low-level latency, learner-centric services, and m-learning performance efficiency. The MEC server deploys closer to the actors' proximity and at the edge in the hierarchy of the existing setup of the mobile cloud infrastructure that validates the following operations.” (see section of “3. Proposed architecture”). However, Mohiuddin alone or in combination with others does not disclose the limitations identified above.
Wang, Y.; Man, K.L.; Lee, K.; Hughes, D.; Guan, S.U.; Wong, P. Application of Wireless Sensor Network Based on Hierarchical Edge Computing Structure in Rapid Response System. Electronics 2020, 9, 1176, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/9/7/1176 (hereinafter Wang) discloses the “paper presents a rapid response system architecture for the distributed management of warehouses in logistics by applying the concept of tiered edge computing. A tiered edge node architecture is proposed for the system to process computing tasks of different complexity, and a corresponding rapid response algorithm is introduced. The paper emphasizes the classification of abstracted outlier sensing data which could better match different sensing types and transplant to various application fields. A software-defined simulation is used to evaluate the system performance on response time and response accuracy, from which it can be concluded that common predefined emergency cases can be detected and responded to, rapidly.” (see Abstract). Particularly, Wang discloses “we propose a hierarchical structure for the edge layer in the WSN-Edge-Cloud architecture to meet the requirements of rapid response in the intelligent warehouse scenario. Rapid response indicates that by taking advantage of the edge computing, the system gives the first time response to exceptions near the data-generating location rather than waiting for the response strategies from cloud computing, so as to improve the response speed of the system. Instead of the standard approach of an integrated single edge layer in the WSN-Edge-Cloud architecture, this paper proposes a novel approach of a hierarchical edge layer with cooperated edge nodes in each of the different tiers.
In this hierarchical structure, the edge functions are modularized and abstracted according to the coupling degree of functions and applications. General functions that loosely coupled with concrete applications such as data formatting are achieved on low-level edge nodes while the application-specific functions are allocated to high-level edge nodes. Such grading strategy keeps the advantages of edge computing with low latency and enhances the reconfiguration of hierarchical modules at the edge of the network.” (see section of “1. Introduction”) and “the proposed edge computing-based graded
system architecture consists of three core layers as illustrated in Figure 1. As a widely accepted environmental sensing infrastructure, sensor nodes in the WSN collect sensing data and track changes to the environment continuously. For better identification and management, sensor nodes in the WSN are logically separated into different areas. By moving the computation to the edge of the networks, the edge computing layer reduces the response time during communications as well as the required upload bandwidth between the sensor networks and the cloud. Compared to just using the cloud, the edge layer is physically close to the environment. The functionality of the edge layer in the proposed structure is refined into three grades of edge nodes. Grade one and two edge nodes are focused on general functions including data formatting, preliminary data processing for WSN data collection, as well as the execution of tasks and control commands allocated by the upper layer (higher grade edge nodes or the cloud). Grade three edge nodes contribute to more complex data analysis, which involves data that is potentially useful for prediction and control, as well as generating or relaying control commands from the upper layer down to the lower layer. Cloud computing is docked to the cloud layer, which contributes to the centralized analysis of global data and management of the entire network. In addition, the connection between users and the system via the cloud realizes the remote operation and control of all areas covered by the terminal devices. For application developers, the system can be accessed via the cloud or edge node for application deployment depending on the deployment requirements and the network condition.” (see section of “2. Architecture and Methodology”). However, Wang alone or in combination with others does not disclose the limitations identified above.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0039987 A1 to SALMASI et al. (hereinafter SALMASI) discloses “a method and edge computing system configured to generate or process extended reality (XR) data. Processors in the edge computing system receive, process, and analyze a sensory feed from an optical device to generate analysis results that include a relative position of the optical device from surrounding objects. The processors generate mapper output results (that include virtual coordinates) based on the analysis results, request and receive information (e.g., salient points of interest, etc.), and compare the generated mapper output results to the received information to identify a correlation between a feature included in the processed sensory feed and a feature included in the received information. The processors generate and send augmented information to a renderer and/or send the processed sensory feed to a cloud object recognizer for further processing.” (see Abstract). Particularly, SALMASI discloses “in a multi-user XR scenario in which several XR applications are executed simultaneously, the end-to-end implementation may be based on a hierarchical architecture that includes a cloud layer 502, an edge layer 504, and a user layer 506. The cloud layer 502 may include cloud servers (e.g., cloud server 208, etc.), the edge layer 504 may include one or more edge devices (e.g., edge device 202, 302, etc.), and the user layer 506 may include resource constrained user computing devices (e.g., HMD 100, mobile device 130, etc.)” (see [0113]-[0125]) and “The application controller 802 may be configured to track and provide application capabilities for the edge computing system. Each edge computing system's capabilities to perform a particular XR function is logged in the application controller register. The application controller register is used to determine whether a particular XR function may be performed on an edge computing system” (see [0217-[0218]). However, SALMASI alone or in combination with others does not disclose the limitations identified above.
EUISEOK KIM, "A Novel Hierarchical Edge-based Architecture for Service Oriented IoT. D. Eng. thesis, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Graduate School Seoul National University). [Retrieved on 04 August 2025]. Retrieved from <URL: https://dcollection.snu.ac.kr/common/orgView/000000177854>.X sections 1.1-4.3; and figures 1.1-4.1. (IDS filed on 10/11/2025, NPL No. 2) does not qualify as prior art based on AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUOLEI ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/RUOLEI ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449 9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights