Patent Application 18324853 - METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR INCENTIVIZING

Title: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR INCENTIVIZING PARTICIPATION IN FOG NETWORKS

Application Information

Invention Title: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR INCENTIVIZING PARTICIPATION IN FOG NETWORKS
Application Number: 18324853
Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-05-26T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-05-26T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 709
National Sub-Class: 201000
Examiner Employee Number: 74625
Art Unit: 2457
Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 03/18/2025.

Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged Applicant’s response.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office Action completely failed to consider the words and claim limitations of Claim 15, including at least the elements of a “device for utilizing a network of devices to perform tasks based on usage rates of the network... wherein an amount of the credit debited to perform the second one or more tasks is dependent on a usage rate of the network of devices.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion because the specification does not specifically recite the above argued limitation as claimed. The specification simply recites in paragraph [0166] that “ a user can limit fog network participation depending on the status of the client device with respect to power usage, radio usage, rate of charging, hardware or software capabilities, position or mobility of the device, criticality or popularity of data, the network to which the device is subscribed, etc.” Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitations of claim 15 as previously addressed in claim 7.
Applicant is kindly suggested to show where or how such limitations are being described in the specification in order for the Examiner to give them patentable weight.

Regarding Applicant’s argument that Georgis does not disclose the elements emphasized above. Claims 10 and 15 recite similar elements to those emphasized above. In particular, the Office Action on page 3 cited paragraph 22 of Georgis as allegedly disclosing such elements. However, paragraph 22 of Georgis does not disclose that any task segments as described in Goergis are performed “on behalf of a second device” as claimed. Accordingly, Georgis does not disclose each and every element of each of independent Claims 1, 10, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because Georgis discloses the system credits 16 a user account using a metric that quantifies the user's successful resource contributions that were tracked 14. That is, because a system tracks the completed jobs by a resource and because resources are allocated to a category prior to receiving a job from the system, the system may credit a user account, and the respective category, when a resource successfully performs a job assigned by the system. In other words, the systems may credit or debit accounts based on the tracked information. In addition, successful segment storage should be tracked. (see paragraph [0046]).
Applicant also argued that Smith similarly does not disclose such elements. Page 10 of the Office Action cited paragraph 1194 of Smith as allegedly disclosing such elements. However, paragraph 1194 of Smith relates to “peers [] automatically commission[ing] themselves to perform subtasks from the complex task.” However, automatically commissioning device to perform subtasks of a complex task as in Smith does not disclose performing a task by one device on behalf of a second device as recited in Claims 1, 10, and 15 (and their respective dependent claims).
The Examiner has removed the alternative rejection based on Applicant’s argument.

The Examiner contends that the prior art applied reads on the claimed invention.

It appears that applicants are interpreting the claims very narrow without considering the broad teaching of the references used in the rejection. Applicants are reminded that the examiner is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicants always have the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
In view of such, the rejection is maintained and repeated as follows:

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.

(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 1 – 2 and 10 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis).
Regarding claim 1, Georgis discloses a device, comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0023]; Georgis discloses a central processing unit CPU)); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing non-transitory computer readable instructions configured to, upon execution by the processor (paragraph [0023]; Smith discloses a memory), cause the device to:
receive one or more resources as a credit in response to performing a first one or more tasks on behalf of a second device (paragraphs [0022], [0060]; Georgis discloses that the assigned contributed resources and a processing requirement of a task; tracking resource contribution based on completed task segments, wherein the completed task segments are distributed task segments derived from the task that have been processed by the assigned contributed resources; and crediting an account based on the tracked resource contribution.); and
send a request to redeem at least a portion of the credit to a third device, the request comprising a commission for the third device to perform a second one or more tasks on behalf of the device (paragraphs [0045 - 0047]; Georgis discloses that because the resources are assigned to a category, users may be able to join together and sell their resources to a third party collective, donate their resources to a charity collectively, or wholesale storage resources to a third party collectively. In addition, a third party who is purchasing the wholesale resources may be reassured by the generated 12 model under their category that they are receiving the guaranteed benefit).
Regarding claim 2, Georgis discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the device to receive, in response to the request, data from the third device, the data related to a completion of the second one or more tasks by the third device (paragraph [0047 – 0049]; Georgis discloses that a request for transcoding a movie arrives in the system queue. The system segments the transcoding task and sends some of the segments to the laptop's graphics processor. The system tracks whether the laptop's graphics processor successfully transcodes the segments, and if the laptop's graphics processor does successfully transcode the segments then the system credits the user account proportionally).
Regarding claim 10, Georgis discloses an apparatus for maintaining a ledger for a network of devices performing tasks on behalf of one another, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0023]; Georgis discloses a central processing unit CPU)); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing non-transitory computer readable instructions configured to, upon execution by the processor (paragraph [0023]; Smith discloses a memory), cause the apparatus to:
receive a first indication that a first device has performed a first one or more tasks on behalf of a second device (paragraphs [0022]; Georgis discloses that the assigned contributed resources and a processing requirement of a task; tracking resource contribution based on completed task segments, wherein the completed task segments are distributed task segments derived from the task that have been processed by the assigned contributed resources; and crediting an account based on the tracked resource contribution.);
update the ledger to indicate that the first device has been allocated one or more resources as a credit for performing the one or more tasks (paragraphs [0046 - 0048]; Georgis discloses that the system credits 16 a user account using a metric that quantifies the user's successful resource contributions that were tracked 14. That is, because a system tracks the completed jobs by a resource and because resources are allocated to a category prior to receiving a job from the system, the system may credit a user account);
receive a second indication that a third device has performed a second one or more tasks on behalf of the first device as a redemption of the one or more resources (paragraphs [0045 - 0047]; Georgis discloses that because the resources are assigned to a category, users may be able to join together and sell their resources to a third party collective, donate their resources to a charity collectively, or wholesale storage resources to a third party collectively. In addition, a third party who is purchasing the wholesale resources may be reassured by the generated model under their category that they are receiving the guaranteed benefit).
Regarding claim 11, Georgis discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to update, in response to receiving the second indication, the ledger to indicate that at least a portion of the credit has been redeemed by the first device (paragraphs [0045 – 0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Georgis discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to send data indicative of the credit to the first device based on the first indication that the first device performed the first one or more tasks (paragraphs [0045 – 0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Georgis discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more resources are first one or more resources, the credit is a first credit, and wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to update, in response to receiving the second indication, the ledger to indicate that the third device has been allocated one or more second resources as a second credit for performing the one or more tasks (paragraphs [0029 – 0030], 0032 – 0033]; Georgis discloses that optimizing the credit category model may further comprise of generating the credit category model based on the assigned contributed resources in a credit category; simulating an assessment task to determine an assessment computation time according to the credit category model; and updating the credit category model to optimize a task computation time based on the dynamic availability of the assigned contributed resources and the assessment computation time ).
Regarding claim 14, Georgis discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein credit is a first credit, and further wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to send data indicative of a second credit to the third device in response to receiving the second indication that the third device performed the second one or more tasks (paragraphs [0029 – 0030], 0032 – 0033]).

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.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis) in view of Springer, SR. et al (US 2004/0260748; hereinafter Springer, SR.)
Regarding claim 3, Georgis discloses all the limitations in claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose that the instructions further cause the device to determine, before performing the first one or more tasks, that the credit available for performing the first one or more tasks is above a predetermined threshold.
Springer, SR., in an analogous art, discloses that the instructions further cause the device to determine, before performing the first one or more tasks, that the credit available for performing the first one or more tasks is above a predetermined threshold (abstract; paragraphs [0019 – 0023]; Springer, SR. discloses that if the first count of credits is above a predetermined threshold the local processor may send a remote operation request of the first resource type from the third queue to the remote processor to be executed in connection with the first resource type of the remote processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Georgis by determine, before performing the first one or more tasks, that the credit available for performing the first one or more tasks is above a predetermined threshold as evidenced by Springer, SR. for the purpose of refraining a local cluster from requesting too many remote operations which could result in the capabilities of the remote cluster being executed; thereby limiting or throttling the requesting of remote operations on a remote cluster.
Regarding claim 4, Georgis and Springer, SR. disclose the device of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the device to perform, in response to the determination that the credit is above the predetermined threshold, the first one or more tasks (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Georgis and Springer, SR. disclose the device of claim 3, wherein while the credit is below the predetermined threshold, the device does not perform the first one or more tasks (paragraphs [0019 – 0023]; Springer, SR. discloses that if the first count of credits is below a predetermined threshold, the local processor may queue a remote operation request of the first resource type in a third queue of remote operation requests of the first resource type awaiting to be sent to the remote processor to be executed in connection with the first resource type of the remote processor). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Georgis and Springer, SR. discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the device to determine, before sending the request to redeem the at least a portion of the credit, that an amount of the credit that will be debited based on the third device performing the second one or more tasks is below a predetermined threshold (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Georgis and Springer, SR. discloses the device of claim 7, wherein the request to redeem the at least a portion of the credit is sent to the third device only if the amount of the credit that will be debited based on the third device performing the second one or more tasks is below the predetermined threshold Springer, SR. (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023], [1230]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Georgis and Springer, SR. discloses the device of claim 7, wherein while the amount of the credit that will be debited based on the third device performing the second one or more tasks is above the predetermined threshold, the request to redeem the at least a portion of the credit is no sent to the third device (Springer, SR.: paragraphs [0019 – 0023], [1230]). Same motivation as in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgis et al (US 2012/0215598; hereinafter Georgis) in view of Springer, SR. et al (US 2004/0260748; hereinafter Springer, SR.), and further in view of Smith et al (US 2019/0349426; hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 6, Georgis and Springer, SR. disclose all the limitations in claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose that the instructions further cause the device to receive data indicative of a user consent to opt into a fog network participation prior to performing the one or more tasks.
Smith, in an analogous art, discloses that the instructions further cause the device to receive data indicative of a user consent to opt into a fog network participation prior to performing the one or more tasks (paragraphs [0853], [1324]; Smith discloses that an IoT device associated with the packaging of the product may join with a mesh network, or fog device, at a facility, such as a processing plant, upon delivery of the product to a loading dock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Georgis by causing the device to receive data indicative of a user consent to opt into a fog network participation prior to performing the one or more tasks as evidenced by Smith for the purpose of extending computation burden to a lot more computing devices in a safe and reliable manner.
Claims 15 – 20 incorporate all the limitations of claims 1 – 14 with minor modifications in the claimed language. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 14 apply in claims 15 – 20. Therefore, claims 15 – 20 are rejected for the same reasons.

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.

Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457