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 .
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 2020/0175503 A1), hereinafter, “Sarin” in view of Adams et al. (US 2021/0272075 A1), hereinafter, “Adams”.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 16, Sarin discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to implement a method comprising:
registering, at a telecommunications network comprising a plurality of network functions, a resource capability profile for each of a plurality of network computing devices belonging to the telecommunications network (See, Paragraphs 0025-0026 and 0065);
establishing a connection between a network function of the telecommunications network and a blockchain node of a blockchain network (See, Paragraph 0034);
receiving, at the network function, a service request comprising
assigning, at the network function, a plurality of
returning a
Sarin discloses resource based distributed processing of blockchain transactions; Sarin fails to disclose distributed processing of hashing operations.
Adams discloses distributed processing of hashing operations (See, Paragraphs 0023, 0031 and 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process, in the system of Sarin, hashing operations also in distributed processing as taught by Adams because it provides a mining pool to automatically select a blockchain network for mining operations on-the-fly and stop the wastage of hashpower resources (See, Adams, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claims 3, 11 and 18, the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams further discloses wherein the plurality of hashing operations is assigned further based on a real-time network latency measured for the plurality of network computing devices (See, Sarin, Paragraphs 0026, 0037 and 0042).
Regarding Claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams further discloses wherein the blockchain network is a public blockchain (See, Sarin, Paragraph 0001).
Claims 2, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin in view of Adams and further in view of Casey et al. (US 2021/0136006 A1), hereinafter, “Casey”.
Regarding Claims 2, 10 and 17, the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams further discloses generating the prediction
The combination of Sarin and Adams fails to disclose generating the prediction using a ML model.
Casey discloses generating network computing resources prediction using a ML model (See, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate, in the system of Sarin and Adams, prediction using a ML model as taught by Casey so that the limited capacity of each node may be used more efficiently while also maintaining low latency for processing requests and providing computing services (See, Casey, Paragraph 0035).
Claims 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin in view of Adams and further in view of Thotton Veettil (US 2023/0026025 A1), hereinafter, “Veettil”.
Regarding Claims 4, 12 and 19, the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the resource capability profile indicates a device type.
Veettil discloses resource capability profile indicates a device type (See, Paragraphs 0011 and 0137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, in the system of Sarin and Adams, to achieve load balancing and/or to provide the UE a desired level of quality of service as the capability of some networks to provide service changes over time (See, Veettil, Paragraph 0011).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin in view of Adams and further in view of Thompson (US 2020/0007317 A1), hereinafter, “Thompson”.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the hash data output is a Merkle root.
Thompson discloses transaction processing for a block of the blockchain wherein hash data output is a Merkle root (See, Paragraph 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate, in the system of Sarin and Adams, hash data output as a Merkle root as taught by Thompson because a Merkle root, which is a hash of the Merkle tree root of the transactions stored in that block is a normal calculation when performing a proof-of work operation during a block creation (See, Thompson, Paragraph 0045).
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin in view of Adams and further in view of Shin (US 2021/0326331 A1), hereinafter, “Shin”.
Regarding Claims 7, 14 and 20, the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams further discloses that the network could be telecommunications network (See, Sarin, Paragraph 0065) but the combination fails to disclose wherein the plurality of network computing devices includes at least one computing device associated with a core network domain of the telecommunications network and at least one computing device associated with an access network domain of the telecommunications network.
Shin discloses a telecommunications network wherein a plurality of network computing devices includes at least one computing device associated with a core network domain of the telecommunications network and at least one computing device associated with an access network domain of the telecommunications network (See, Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement, in the system of Sarin and Adams, a plurality of network computing devices includes at least one computing device associated with a core network domain of the telecommunications network and at least one computing device associated with an access network domain of the telecommunications network as taught by Shin in order to provide load balancing in telecommunication network in case the node in the blockchain are using telecommunication network.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin in view of Adams and further in view of Doshi et al. (US 2020/0136994 A1), hereinafter, “Doshi”.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is incorporated and the combination of Sarin and Adams does not explicitly disclose wherein the resource capability profile for each of the plurality of network computing devices is registered in response to a discovery request broadcasted from the network function.
Doshi discloses a resource capability profile for each of a plurality of network computing devices is registered in response to a discovery request broadcasted from a network function (See, Paragraphs 0078 and 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to register, in the system of Sarin and Adams, a resource capability profile for each of a plurality of network computing devices registered in response to a discovery request broadcasted from a network function as taught by Doshi so that resource query controller could simply poll the network rather than wait for each individual device to submit it’s profile.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,517. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,517.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights