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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to the arguments filed on 02/20/2026. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending in the application and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention:
Claim 1:
determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input
models associated with the application;
determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality
of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity;
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one
entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node;
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity; and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to
the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time;”
Claim 15:
determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input
models associated with the application;
determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality
of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity;
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one
entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node;
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity; and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to
the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time;”
Claim 18:
determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input
models associated with the application;
determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality
of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity;
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one
entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node;
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity; and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to
the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time;”
On page 12, lines 16-20, the specification (original disclosure) recites:
Illustrative embodiments overcome the above and other drawbacks with user context
migrations by fixing (e.g., setting, selecting, establishing, prescribing, and the like) a computation model to be used to generate an order for executing computations in response to determining the input model from a first plurality of selectable input models and the AI (e.g., deep learning) framework from a second plurality of selectable AI frameworks.
Therefore, there is no support for the following limitation:
“determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input
models associated with the application;”
On page 2, lines 1-24, the specification (original disclosure) recites 4 instances of “artificial intelligence framework(s)”:
FIG. 3 illustrates a workflow for an artificial intelligence framework for runtime execution
of an artificial intelligence model with which one or more illustrative embodiments can be implemented.
FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary ordering for which a scheduler of an artificial intelligence framework calls kernel computations associated with a computation graph using data parallelism.
15 FIG. 4B illustrates an exemplary ordering for which a scheduler of an artificial intelligence framework calls kernel computations associated with a computation graph using model parallelism.
FIG. 4C illustrates an exemplary ordering for which a scheduler of an artificial intelligence framework calls kernel computations associated with a computation graph using pipeline
parallelism.
FIG. 6 illustrates a process for obtaining a computation graph from different artificial
intelligence frameworks and models according to an illustrative embodiment.
Therefore, there is no support for the following limitation:
“determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality
of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity;”
On page 2, lines 13-24, the specification (original disclosure) recites 2 instances of “maintain(s) (ing).”
“a method maintains, as part of a context at the first node, a set of status indicators for a set of computations associated 15 with a computation graph representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node. Further, the method causes the transfer of the context from the first node to the second node to enable the second node to continue execution of the application using the transferred context from the first node.
In further illustrative embodiments, the maintaining step may further comprise setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses.
Therefore, there is no support for the following limitation:
“maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one
entity at the first node…”
On page 20, lines 7-8, the specification (original disclosure) recites an instance of “transfer.”
More particularly, a unified solution is provided to transfer the user context of any
deep learning application based on the AMS specification defined in the MEC standard.
Therefore, there is no support for the following limitation:
“determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity;”
On page 20, lines 7-8, the specification (original disclosure) recites an instance of “transfer.”
More particularly, a unified solution is provided to transfer the user context of any
deep learning application based on the AMS specification defined in the MEC standard.
Therefore, there is no support for the following limitation:
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to
the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time;”
Dependent claims 2-13, 16-17 and 19-21 inherited the deficiencies of the parent
claim. Therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
For Step 1, the claim is a method, so it does recite a statutory category of invention.
For Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, that at least one entity is moving from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input models associated with the application”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “maintaining (i.e., managing), by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph” limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “maintaining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process.
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, a real-time transfer threshold comprising a maximum amount of time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
For Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements: “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application,” “causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time,” processor, memory, storing computer program instructions and executes the computer program instructions, edge computing and cellular-based user equipment,
The processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional element of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application” is a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time” is a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “storing computer program instructions” step is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “executes the computer program instructions” is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “processor, memory edge computing and cellular-based user equipment " are generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B
The additional elements of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application,” “executes the computer program instructions,” “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold,” ““processor, memory edge computing and cellular-based user equipment " do not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
Additionally, under the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here the “storing computer program instructions” step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data
Here the “causing the transfer (i.e. transmitting) of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of
“an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application,” “executes the computer program instructions,”
“enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold,” “processor, memory edge computing and cellular-based user equipment" to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites an additional element: “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on an execution state of each of the computations.”
The “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on an execution state of each of the computations” is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on an execution state of each of the computations” does not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations” to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3, which incorporates the rejection of claim 2, recites an additional element:
“a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that a given computation is completed” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4, which incorporates the rejection of claim 3, recites further limitations such as “a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, recites further limitations such as “a third status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6, which incorporates the rejection of claim 5, recites an additional element:
“the entity context is transferred from the first node to the second node after each computation with the second status is completed” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7, which incorporates the rejection of claim 5, recites an additional element:
“The context transferred to the second node includes one or more computations with the third status” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8, which incorporates the rejection of claim 5, recites an additional element: “changing one or more computations with the second status to the third status prior to the one or more computations being completed, based on a timing demand associated with the context transfer.”
The “changing one or more computations with the second status to the third status prior to the one or more computations being completed, based on a timing demand associated with the context transfer” step is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “changing one or more computations with the second status to the third status prior to the one or more computations being completed, based on a timing demand associated with the context transfer” step does not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “changing one or more computations with the second status to the third status prior to the one or more computations being completed, based on a timing demand associated with the context transfer” step to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9, which incorporates the rejection of claim 5, recites further limitations such as “parameters associated with the set of computations” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10, which incorporates the rejection of claim 9, recites further limitations such as “parameters for a given computation comprise at least one of model parameters for the given computation and outputs from other computations” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11, which incorporates the rejection of claim 10, recites an additional element: “parameters that are outputs of other computations that serve as inputs to computations with the third status are transferred as part of the context.”
The “parameters that are outputs of other computations that serve as inputs to computations with the third status are transferred as part of the context” step is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, under the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here the “parameters that are outputs of other computations that serve (i.e. sending) as inputs to computations with the third status are transferred as part of the context” step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12, which incorporates the rejection of claim 9, recites further limitations such as “no model parameters are necessarily part of the transferred context” that are part of the abstract idea.
The claim recites an additional element: “an artificial intelligence model.”
The “artificial intelligence model” step is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “artificial intelligence model” step does not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “artificial intelligence model” step to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, recites an additional element: an artificial intelligence model used for training.
The recited “artificial intelligence model used for training” “is an intended use and linked to the judicial exception.
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
For Step 1, the claim is an apparatus, so it does recite a statutory category of invention.
For Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, that at least one entity is moving from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input models associated with the application”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “maintaining (i.e., managing), by the first node, of an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph” limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “maintaining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process.
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, a real-time transfer threshold comprising a maximum amount of time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
For Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements: “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application,” processor, memory, storing computer program instructions and executes the computer program instructions, edge computing and cellular-based user equipment.
The processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional element of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application” is a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations” is a step is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “storing computer program instructions” step is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “executes the computer program instructions” is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold” is a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “processor, memory edge computing and cellular-based user equipment" are generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B
The additional elements of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application” “executes the computer program instructions,” “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold,” “processor, memory edge computing and cellular-based user equipment" do not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
Additionally, under the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B.
Here the “storing computer program instructions” step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data
Here the “causing the transfer (i.e. transmitting) of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations.” MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of
“an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application” “executes the computer program instructions,” “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time,” “processor, memory edge computing and cellular-based user equipment" to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 which incorporates the rejection of claim 15, recites an additional element:
“setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on an execution state of each of the computations.”
The “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on an execution state of each of the computations” is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on an execution state of each of the computations” does not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations” to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17, which incorporates the rejection of claim 16, recites further limitations such as “a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation is completed, a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed, and a third status of the plurality of
statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started.” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 18:
For Step 1, the claim is a non-transitory computer-readable medium, so it does recite a statutory category of invention.
For Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the limitation of “determining that at least one entity is moving that moves from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input models associated with the application”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “maintaining (i.e., managing) , by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph” limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “maintaining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of “determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the “determining” step from practically being performed in the human mind. This limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
For Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements: “processing device,” “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application, edge computing and cellular-based user equipment.”
The additional element of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application” edge computing and cellular-based user equipment are generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations” is a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time” is a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B
The additional elements of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application,” “executes the computer program instructions,” “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time, and ”edge computing and cellular-based user equipment“ do not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
Here the “causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations.” MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of
“processing device,” “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node”, “the second node are configured to execute an application” and “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time,” to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 which incorporates the rejection of claim 18, recites an additional element:
“setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the execution state of each of the computations.”
The “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the execution state of each of the computations” is a generic computer component that amounts to a generic computer component to apply an abstract idea under See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the execution state of each of the computations” do not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the execution state of each of the computations” to perform the claim steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20, which incorporates the rejection of claim 19, recites further limitations such as “a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that a given computation is completed, a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed, and a third status of the plurality of
statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding Claim 21:
Claim 21, which incorporates the rejection of claim 20, recites further limitations such as
“the entity context is transferred from the first node to the second node after each computation with the second status is completed, and wherein the entity context transferred to the second node includes one or more computations with the third status” that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
There are no additional elements recited in this claim that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al. (US 2022/0078601 A1, hereinafter referred to as Poornachandran), in view of Hunter (US 11,132,403 B2, hereinafter referred to as Hunter), and further in view of GOENKA et al. (US 2022/0007437 A1, hereinafter referred to as GOENKA).
As to claim 1, Poornachandran teaches a method, comprising:
in an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application the first node determining that with at least one entity is moving from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node (paragraphs [0031], the vUE 125 is connected to one evolved nodeB (eNB) that acts as a master node (MN) and one 5G
or next generation nodeB (gNB) that acts as a secondary node (SN); [0038], the vUE 121/125 may determine to travel from a geographic location A to another geographic
location B. The vUE may request or trigger a DA application to provide a route from the geographic location A to the geographic location B based on some algorithm of the
application; [0071] The DA activity may be associated with assisting a user and/or vehicle in traveling from a geographic location A to another geographic location
B, or based on a particular geographic route from the geographic location A to the geographic location B…; wherein Examiner interprets “a user and/or vehicle” as entity because the specification does not define one “entity” recited in the summary; [0136] These implementations may be used in follow-me clouds (FMC), where cloud services running at distributed data centers follow the UEs 721 as they roam throughout the network (i.e. Listening to the notifications sent from the network);
[0070], the MEC-O 321 may decide to select one or more new MEC servers to act as a master node, and initiates the transfer of an application instance or application related state information from the one or more source MEC servers to the one or more target MEC servers. An MEC server may be an MSP edge server 136 in FIG. 2; [0078], once the vUE is authenticated and corresponding SLA is verified, the vUE can initiate the handshake prior to arriving to a dead zone that requires the supplemental wireless service. The vUE can initiate a query with the MNOA when it is approaching or in the proximity of the dead zone);
determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input models associated with the application (paragraphs [0035] The direct communication over a reference point may be based on a consumer (or subscriber)/producer model (interpreted by Examiner as an input model) where a consumer is configured with a producer's profile and directly communicates with that producer. The indirect communication over a reference point may also be based on a consumer (or subscriber)/producer model where a consumer queries an intermediate node, selects an end point (or termination point), and the consumer sends the request to the selected producer via the intermediate node; [0056] RNI may be also used by the MEP 337 to optimize the mobility procedures required to support service continuity, such as when a certain MEA 336 requests a single piece of information using a simple request-response model (e.g., using RESTful mechanisms) while other MEAs 336 subscribe to multiple different notifications regarding information changes (e.g., using a pub/sub mechanism and/or message broker mechanisms; [0069] The application requirements may be rules and requirements associated to/with one or more MEAs 336, such as deployment model (interpreted by Examiner as an input model) of the application (e.g., whether it is one instance per user, one instance per host, one instance on each host, etc.); wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “consumer (or subscriber)/producer model,” the “simple request-response model,” and the “deployment model” as “selectable input models”);
determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity (paragraph [0043], edge computing technology provides an end-to-end system architecture framework that enables distribution of computation processes over localized networks. In this infrastructure framework, localized data collected via local networks and wide area data stored in the cloud are integrated in the edge computing architecture to provide real-time information necessary for the services of connected vUE; [0137] FIG. 8 is an example of application instances in a V2X service with MEC V2X APL. In the framework of V2X services, a vehicle 821 (which may be the same or similar as vehicle system 121 and/or UE 125 of FIG. 1) is hosting a client application, and is connected to a certain MEC host (and a related MEC application; [0129] This virtualized framework allows the freed-up processor cores of the RAN nodes 731/732 to perform other virtualized applications; wherein Examiner interprets an end-to-end system architecture framework and infrastructure framework to include a plurality of selectable frameworks such as the framework of V2X services and the virtualized framework).
However, Poornachandran fails to explicitly teach:
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined, by the first node, input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node;
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity; and
causing the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node
based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold;
wherein the first node comprises at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the first node performs the method.
Hunter, in combination with Poornachandran, teaches:
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node (col. 74; lines 9-24, determining a set of transaction paths between a first entity and a second entity based on the transaction graph, as indicated by block 1636; col. 90, lines 47-67 to col. 91, lines 1-15, In some embodiments, the set of confirmation messages may include one or more authentication frameworks to authenticate a confirmation message. For example, the set of confirmation messages may include a set of passkey values. For example, each respective message of a set of confirmation messages may include a respective passkey value of the set of passkey values, where each message of the set of confirmation messages may be associated with a respective 55 entity of the set of selected entities; col. 33, lines 44-65, some embodiments may use a set of multi-iteration scores as weights of a neural network, where the training inputs of the neural network may be outcome scores and the training outputs of the neural network may be events, indicators representing activated outcome subroutines, or activated patterns; col. 76, lines 18-30, a smart contract may include an entity representing a first asset. The first entity may include or otherwise be associated with a first entity property that includes a first list of indicators, where each of the first list of indicators points to an owner of the first asset. The asset may include or otherwise be associated with a second entity property that includes a second list of indicators, where each of the second list of indicators points to another entity owned by the first entity);
determining, by the first node, (col. 13; lines 7-20, a set of condition expiration thresholds, where the set of condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals, or the like. The system may check the set of condition expiration thresholds to determine if any of the condition expiration thresholds have been satisfied; col. 59, lines 52-67, some embodiments may include a determination that a program state has reached its expiration threshold of 30 years (“30 years” interpreted as a transfer time), where each program state has an associated time point based on a timestamp associated with the satisfaction of the norms that would result in that program state. For example, a program state may include an obligation by the first entity to allocate an amount of computing resources to a second entity every month (“every month” interpreted as a transfer time), and determining a set of events that satisfies these obligation norms may include advancing the simulated time by one month for each event that satisfies an obligation norm. If an expiration threshold of the symbolic AI model is one year (“one year” interpreted as a transfer time), the system may determine that an end state has been reached once the one-year expiration threshold has been reached; wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals “ and “expiration threshold of every month , one and 30 years” to teach “a time in which to transfer”); and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations (Hunter: status indicators) to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold (col. 10, lines 20-55 for example, the event message may be
transmitted from a first node of a distributed computing system (e.g., a blockchain platform) to a second node of the distributed computing system, where the first node and second node may be at different geographic locations (e.g., different nodes executing on different computing devices) or share a same geographic location (e.g., different nodes executing on a same computing device. Furthermore, an event message may be sent by a first smart contract executing on a first computing distributed platform to a second smart contract executing on a same or different distributed
computing platform…, the event may include satisfying a condition expiration threshold;
col. 13; lines 7-20, a set of condition expiration thresholds, where the set of condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals, or the like. The system may check the set of condition expiration thresholds to determine if any of the condition expiration thresholds have been satisfied; col. 59, lines 52-67;
wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals “and “expiration threshold of every month, one and 30 years” to teach “a time in which to transfer”);
wherein the first node comprises at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the first node performs the method (col. 10, lines 20-55, the event message may be transmitted from a first node of a distributed computing system (e.g., a blockchain platform) to a second node of the distributed computing system, wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “first node of a distributed computing system” to teach the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of to add a transfer time the system of Poornachandran, as taught by Hunter above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to reduce the computational load on the distributed computing platform, as suggested by Hunter (col. 82, lines 9-15).
However, Poornachandran and Hunter fail top explicitly teach:
wherein the information processing system comprises an edge computing environment and the first node and second node respectively comprise first and second edge nodes of the edge computing environment, and the at least one entity comprises cellular-based user equipment moving from a geographic proximity of the first edge node to a geographic proximity of the second edge node.
GOENKA, in combination with Poornachandran and Hunter, teaches:
wherein the information processing system comprises an edge computing environment and the first node and second node respectively comprise first and second edge nodes of the edge computing environment, and the at least one entity comprises cellular-based user equipment moving from a geographic proximity of the first edge node to a geographic proximity of the second edge node (paragraphs [0099] In accordance with at least one embodiment, each edge cloud server ( e.g., the edge cloud server 308A, 308B, etc.) maintains its own QoS-related information and periodically provides a snapshot of its QoS-related information to the core cloud server (e.g., the core cloud server 304A). In some cases, an edge cloud server can periodically provide a snapshot of its QoS-related information to the core cloud server as well as other edge cloud servers (e.g., other edge cloud servers within a certain geographic proximity); [0116]-[0117] As discussed, the user device 314 can be a mobile device that is capable of physically moving from one cellular base station to another. By way of a non-limiting example, the physical location of user device 314 can move from a geographic area (e.g., a cell) serviced by cellular base station 306A to the geographic area (e.g., a cell) serviced by the cellular base station 306B. In such a case, the disclosed systems and methods cause the local device instance to move with the user device 314 from the edge cloud server 308A (at the cellular base station 306A) to the edge cloud server 308B (at the cellular base station 306B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of to add a moving cellular-based user equipment the combination system of Poornachandran and Hunter, as taught by GOENKA above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to provide a user device capable of physically shifting from one cellular base station to another to avoid latency issue and optimize the network transmission reliability., as suggested by GOENKA, ([0006]).
As to claim 15, Poornachandran teaches an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions (paragraph [0133], processor), the apparatus is configured as a first node in an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application the first node determining that with at least one entity is moving from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node (paragraphs [0032], the vUE 125 is connected to one evolved nodeB (eNB) that acts as a master node (MN) and one 5G or next generation nodeB (gNB) that acts as a secondary node (SN); [0038], the vUE 121/125 may determine to travel from a geographic location A to another geographic location B. The vUE may request or trigger a DA application to provide a route from the geographic location A to the geographic location B based on some algorithm of the application; [0071] The DA activity may be associated with assisting a user and/or vehicle in traveling from a geographic location A to another geographic location B, or based on a particular geographic route from the geographic location A to the geographic location B…; wherein Examiner interprets “a user and/or vehicle” as entity because the specification does not define one “entity” recited in the summary; [0136] These implementations may be used in follow-me clouds (FMC), where cloud services running at distributed data centers follow the UEs 721 as they roam throughout the network (i.e. Listening to the notifications sent from the network); [0070], the MEC-O 321 may decide to select one or more new MEC servers to act as a master node, and initiates the transfer of an application instance or application related state information from the one or more source MEC servers to the one or more target MEC servers. An MEC server may be an MSP edge server 136 in FIG. 2; [0078], once the vUE is authenticated and corresponding SLA is verified, the vUE can initiate the handshake prior to arriving to a dead zone that requires the supplemental wireless service. The vUE can initiate a query with the MNO A when it is approaching or in the proximity of the dead zone);
determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input models associated with the application (paragraphs [0035] The direct communication over a reference point may be based on a consumer (or subscriber)/producer model (interpreted as an input model) where a consumer is configured with a producer's profile and directly communicates with that producer. The indirect communication over a reference point may also be based on a consumer (or subscriber)/producer model (interpreted as an input model) where a consumer queries an intermediate node, selects an end point (or termination point), and the consumer sends the request to the selected producer via the intermediate node; [0056] RNI may be also used by the MEP 337 to optimize the mobility procedures required to support service continuity, such as when a certain MEA 336 requests a single piece of information using a simple request-response model (e.g., using RESTful mechanisms) while other MEAs 336 subscribe to multiple different notifications regarding information changes (e.g., using a pub/sub mechanism and/or message broker mechanisms; [0069] The application requirements may be rules and requirements associated to/with one or more MEAs 336, such as deployment model (interpreted as an input model) of the application (e.g., whether it is one instance per user, one instance per host, one instance on each host, etc.); wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “consumer (or subscriber)/producer model,” the “simple request-response model,” and the “deployment model” as “selectable input models”);
determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity (paragraph [0043], edge computing technology provides an end-to-end system architecture framework that enables distribution of computation processes over localized networks. In this infrastructure framework, localized data collected via local networks and wide area data stored in the cloud are integrated in the edge computing architecture to provide real-time information necessary for the services of connected vUE; wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the” edge computing technology provides an end-to-end system architecture framework that enables distribution of computation processes over localized networks. In this infrastructure framework” to teach the limitation”; [0137] FIG. 8 is an example of application instances in a V2X service with MEC V2X APL In the framework of V2X services, a vehicle 821 (which may be the same or similar as vehicle system 121 and/or UE 125 of FIG. 1) is hosting a client application, and is connected to a certain MEC host (and a related MEC application).
However, Poornachandran fails to explicitly teach:
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node;
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity; and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the determined time;
wherein the first node comprises at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the first node performs the method,
Hunter, in combination with Poornachandran, teaches:
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node (col. 74; lines 9-24, determining a set of transaction paths between a first entity and a second entity based on the transaction graph, as indicated by block 1636; col. 90, lines 47-67 to col. 91, lines 1-15, In some embodiments, the set of confirmation messages may include one or more authentication frameworks to authenticate a confirmation message. For example, the set of confirmation messages may include a set of passkey values. For example, each respective message of a set of confirmation messages may include a respective passkey value of the set of passkey values, where each message of the set of confirmation messages may be associated with a respective 55 entity of the set of selected entities; col. 33, lines 44-65, some embodiments may use a set of multi-iteration scores as weights of a neural network, where the training inputs of the neural network may be outcome scores and the training outputs of the neural network may be events, indicators representing activated outcome subroutines, or activated patterns; col. 76, lines 18-30, a smart contract may include an entity representing a first asset. The first entity may include or otherwise be associated with a first entity property that includes a first list of indicators, where each of the first list of indicators points to an owner of the first asset. The asset may include or otherwise be associated with a second entity property that includes a second list of indicators, where each of the second list of indicators points to another entity owned by the first entity);
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity (col. 13; lines 7-20, a set of condition expiration thresholds, where the set of condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals, or the like. The system may check the set of condition expiration thresholds to determine if any of the condition expiration thresholds have been satisfied; col. 59, lines 52-67, some embodiments may include a determination that a program state has reached its expiration threshold of 30 years (“30 years” interpreted as a transfer time), where each program state has an associated time point based on a timestamp associated with the satisfaction of the norms that would result in that program state. For example, a program state may include an obligation by the first entity to allocate an amount of computing resources to a second entity every month (“every month” interpreted as a transfer time), and determining a set of events that satisfies these obligation norms may include advancing the simulated time by one month for each event that satisfies an obligation norm. If an expiration threshold of the symbolic AI model is one year (“one year” interpreted as a transfer time), the system may determine that an end state has been reached once the one-year expiration threshold has been reached; wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals “ and “expiration threshold of every month , one and 30 years” to teach “a time in which to transfer”); and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations (Hunter: status indicators) to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold (col. 10, lines 20-55 for example, the event message may be
transmitted from a first node of a distributed computing system (e.g., a blockchain platform) to a second node of the distributed computing system, where the first node and second node may be at different geographic locations (e.g., different nodes executing on different computing devices) or share a same geographic location (e.g., different nodes executing on a same computing device. Furthermore, an event message may be sent by a first smart contract executing on a first computing distributed platform to a second smart contract executing on a same or different distributed
computing platform…, the event may include satisfying a condition expiration threshold;
col. 13; lines 7-20, a set of condition expiration thresholds, where the set of condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals, or the like. The system may check the set of condition expiration thresholds to determine if any of the condition expiration thresholds have been satisfied; col. 59, lines 52-67;
wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals “and “expiration threshold of every month, one and 30 years” to teach “a transfer time in which to transfer”);
wherein the first node comprises at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the first node performs the method (col. 10, lines 20-55, the event message may be transmitted from a first node of a distributed computing system (e.g., a blockchain platform) to a second node of the distributed computing system, wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “first node of a distributed computing system” to teach the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of to add a transfer time to the system of Poornachandran, as taught by Hunter above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would to reduce the computational load on the distributed computing platform, as suggested by Hunter (col. 82, lines 9-15).
However, Poornachandran and Hunter fail top explicitly teach:
wherein the information processing system comprises an edge computing environment and the first node and second node respectively comprise first and second edge nodes of the edge computing environment, and the at least one entity comprises cellular-based user equipment moving from a geographic proximity of the first edge node to a geographic proximity of the second edge node.
GOENKA, in combination with Poornachandran and Hunter, teaches:
wherein the information processing system comprises an edge computing environment and the first node and second node respectively comprise first and second edge nodes of the edge computing environment, and the at least one entity comprises cellular-based user equipment moving from a geographic proximity of the first edge node to a geographic proximity of the second edge node (paragraphs [0099] In accordance with at least one embodiment, each edge cloud server ( e.g., the edge cloud server 308A, 308B, etc.) maintains its own QoS-related information and periodically provides a snapshot of its QoS-related information to the core cloud server (e.g., the core cloud server 304A). In some cases, an edge cloud server can periodically provide a snapshot of its QoS-related information to the core cloud server as well as other edge cloud servers (e.g., other edge cloud servers within a certain geographic proximity); [0116]-[0117] As discussed, the user device 314 can be a mobile device that is capable of physically moving from one cellular base station to another. By way of a non-limiting example, the physical location of user device 314 can move from a geographic area (e.g., a cell) serviced by cellular base station 306A to the geographic area (e.g., a cell) serviced by the cellular base station 306B. In such a case, the disclosed systems and methods cause the local device instance to move with the user device 314 from the edge cloud server 308A (at the cellular base station 306A) to the edge cloud server 308B (at the cellular base station 306B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of to add a moving cellular-based user equipment the combination system of Poornachandran and Hunter, as taught by GOENKA above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to provide a user device capable of physically shifting from one cellular base station to another to avoid latency issue and optimize the network transmission reliability., as suggested by GOENKA, ([0006]).
As to claim 18, Poornachandran teaches a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine executable instructions (col. 9, lines 55-58), the machine executable instructions, when executed, causing a processing device to perform steps of a first node in an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application the first node determining that with at least one entity is moving from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node (paragraphs [0032], the vUE 125 is connected to one evolved nodeB (eNB) that acts as a master node (MN) and one 5G
or next generation nodeB (gNB) that acts as a secondary node (SN); [0038], the vUE 121/125 may determine to travel from a geographic location A to another geographic
location B. The vUE may request or trigger a DA application to provide a route from the geographic location A to the geographic location B based on some algorithm of the
application…; [0071] The DA activity may be associated with assisting a user and/or vehicle in traveling from a geographic location A to another geographic location
B, or based on a particular geographic route from the geographic location A to the geographic location B…; wherein Examiner interprets “a user and/or vehicle” as entity because the specification does not define one “entity” recited in the summary; [0136] These implementations may be used in follow-me clouds (FMC), where cloud services running at distributed data centers follow the UEs 721 as they roam throughout the network (i.e. Listening to the notifications sent from the network);
[0070], the MEC-O 321 may decide to select one or more new MEC servers to act as a master node, and initiates the transfer of an application instance or application
related state information from the one or more source MEC servers to the one or more target MEC servers. An MEC server may be an MSP edge server 136 in FIG. 2; [0078], once the vUE is authenticated and corresponding SLA is verified, the vUE can initiate the handshake prior to arriving to a dead zone that requires the supplemental wireless service. The vUE can initiate a query with the MNO A when it is approaching or in the proximity of the dead zone);
determining, by the first node, an input model from a plurality of selectable input models associated with the application (paragraphs [0035] The direct communication over a reference point may be based on a consumer (or subscriber)/producer model (interpreted as an input model) where a consumer is configured with a producer's profile and directly communicates with that producer. The indirect communication over a reference point may also be based on a consumer (or subscriber)/producer model (interpreted as an input model) where a consumer queries an intermediate node, selects an end point (or termination point), and the consumer sends the request to the selected producer via the intermediate node; [0056] RNI may be also used by the MEP 337 to optimize the mobility procedures required to support service continuity, such as when a certain MEA 336 requests a single piece of information using a simple request-response model (e.g., using RESTful mechanisms) while other MEAs 336 subscribe to multiple different notifications regarding information changes (e.g., using a pub/sub mechanism and/or message broker mechanisms; [0069] The application requirements may be rules and requirements associated to/with one or more MEAs 336, such as deployment model (interpreted as an input model) of the application (e.g., whether it is one instance per user, one instance per host, one instance on each host, etc.); wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “consumer (or subscriber)/producer model,” the “simple request-response model,” and the “deployment model” as “selectable input models”);
determining, by the first node, an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity (paragraph [0043], edge computing technology provides an end-to-end system architecture framework that enables distribution of computation processes over localized networks. In this infrastructure framework, localized data collected via local networks and wide area data stored in the cloud are integrated in the edge computing architecture to provide real-time information necessary for the services of connected vUE; wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the” edge computing technology provides an end-to-end system architecture framework that enables distribution of computation processes over localized networks. In this infrastructure framework” to teach the limitation”; [0137] FIG. 8 is an example of application instances in a V2X service with MEC V2X APL In the framework of V2X services, a vehicle 821 (which may be the same or similar as vehicle system 121 and/or UE 125 of FIG. 1) is hosting a client application, and is connected to a certain MEC host (and a related MEC application).
However, Poornachandran fails to explicitly teach:
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node;
determining a real-time transfer threshold comprising a maximum amount of time
in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity; and
causing the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node
based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold;
wherein the first node comprises at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the first node performs the method,
Hunter, in combination with Poornachandran, teaches:
maintaining, by the first node, an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph obtained based on the determined input model and the determined artificial intelligence framework, each computation bound to respective ones of a set of inputs with a set of status indicators representing at least a portion of the execution of the application at the first node, wherein the set of status indicators indicate an execution state of each computation of the set of computations on the first node (col. 74; lines 9-24, determining a set of transaction paths between a first entity and a second entity based on the transaction graph, as indicated by block 1636; col. 90, lines 47-67 to col. 91, lines 1-15, In some embodiments, the set of confirmation messages may include one or more authentication frameworks to authenticate a confirmation message. For example, the set of confirmation messages may include a set of passkey values. For example, each respective message of a set of confirmation messages may include a respective passkey value of the set of passkey values, where each message of the set of confirmation messages may be associated with a respective 55 entity of the set of selected entities; col. 33, lines 44-65, some embodiments may use a set of multi-iteration scores as weights of a neural network, where the training inputs of the neural network may be outcome scores and the training outputs of the neural network may be events, indicators representing activated outcome subroutines, or activated patterns; col. 76, lines 18-30, a smart contract may include an entity representing a first asset. The first entity may include or otherwise be associated with a first entity property that includes a first list of indicators, where each of the first list of indicators points to an owner of the first asset. The asset may include or otherwise be associated with a second entity property that includes a second list of indicators, where each of the second list of indicators points to another entity owned by the first entity);
determining, by the first node, a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity (col. 13; lines 7-20, a set of condition expiration thresholds, where the set of condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals, or the like. The system may check the set of condition expiration thresholds to determine if any of the condition expiration thresholds have been satisfied; col. 59, lines 52-67, some embodiments may include a determination that a program state has reached its expiration threshold of 30 years (“30 years” interpreted as a transfer time), where each program state has an associated time point based on a timestamp associated with the satisfaction of the norms that would result in that program state. For example, a program state may include an obligation by the first entity to allocate an amount of computing resources to a second entity every month (“every month” interpreted as a transfer time), and determining a set of events that satisfies these obligation norms may include advancing the simulated time by one month for each event that satisfies an obligation norm. If an expiration threshold of the symbolic AI model is one year (“one year” interpreted as time), the system may determine that an end state has been reached once the one-year expiration threshold has been reached; wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals “ and “expiration threshold of every month , one and 30 years” to teach “a time in which to transfer”); and
causing, by the first node, the transfer of the entity context from the first node to the second node based on the set of status indicators bound to the set of computations (Hunter: status indicators) to enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold (col. 10, lines 20-55 for example, the event message may be
transmitted from a first node of a distributed computing system (e.g., a blockchain platform) to a second node of the distributed computing system, where the first node and second node may be at different geographic locations (e.g., different nodes executing on different computing devices) or share a same geographic location (e.g., different nodes executing on a same computing device. Furthermore, an event message may be sent by a first smart contract executing on a first computing distributed platform to a second smart contract executing on a same or different distributed
computing platform…, the event may include satisfying a condition expiration threshold;
col. 13; lines 7-20, a set of condition expiration thresholds, where the set of condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals, or the like. The system may check the set of condition expiration thresholds to determine if any of the condition expiration thresholds have been satisfied; col. 59, lines 52-67;
wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “condition expiration thresholds may include specific dates, specific datetimes, durations from a starting point, other measurements of time, other measurements of time intervals “and “expiration threshold of every month, one and 30 years” to teach “a time in which to transfer);
wherein the first node comprises at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the first node performs the method (col. 10, lines 20-55, the event message may be transmitted from a first node of a distributed computing system (e.g., a blockchain platform) to a second node of the distributed computing system, wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the “first node of a distributed computing system” to teach the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of to add real-time transfer threshold to the combination system of Poornachandran and Kalra, as taught by Hunter above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to reduce the computational load on the distributed computing platform, as suggested by Hunter (col. 82, lines 9-15).
However, Poornachandran and Hunter fail top explicitly teach:
wherein the information processing system comprises an edge computing environment and the first node and second node respectively comprise first and second edge nodes of the edge computing environment, and the at least one entity comprises cellular-based user equipment moving from a geographic proximity of the first edge node to a geographic proximity of the second edge node.
GOENKA, in combination with Poornachandran and Hunter, teaches:
wherein the information processing system comprises an edge computing environment and the first node and second node respectively comprise first and second edge nodes of the edge computing environment, and the at least one entity comprises cellular-based user equipment moving from a geographic proximity of the first edge node to a geographic proximity of the second edge node (paragraphs [0099] In accordance with at least one embodiment, each edge cloud server ( e.g., the edge cloud server 308A, 308B, etc.) maintains its own QoS-related information and periodically provides a snapshot of its QoS-related information to the core cloud server (e.g., the core cloud server 304A). In some cases, an edge cloud server can periodically provide a snapshot of its QoS-related information to the core cloud server as well as other edge cloud servers (e.g., other edge cloud servers within a certain geographic proximity); [0116]-[0117] As discussed, the user device 314 can be a mobile device that is capable of physically moving from one cellular base station to another. By way of a non-limiting example, the physical location of user device 314 can move from a geographic area (e.g., a cell) serviced by cellular base station 306A to the geographic area (e.g., a cell) serviced by the cellular base station 306B. In such a case, the disclosed systems and methods cause the local device instance to move with the user device 314 from the edge cloud server 308A (at the cellular base station 306A) to the edge cloud server 308B (at the cellular base station 306B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of to add a moving cellular-based user equipment the combination system of Poornachandran and Hunter, as taught by GOENKA above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to provide a user device capable of physically shifting from one cellular base station to another to avoid latency issue and optimize the network transmission reliability., as suggested by GOENKA, ([0006]).
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 16-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al. (US 2022/0078601 A1, hereinafter referred to as Poornachandran), in view of Hunter (US 11,132,403 B2, hereinafter referred to as Hunter), and further in view of GOENKA et al. (US 2022/0007437 A1, hereinafter referred to as GOENKA) and Tucker et al. (US 2020/0302302 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tucker).
As to claim 2, which incorporate the rejection of claim 1, Poornachandran, Hunter GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the maintaining step further comprises setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the maintaining step further comprises setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations (paragraphs [0035] After the devices perform the operations allocated by the placer 108 generate outputs, the executor 106 can retrieve the outputs. The executor 106 can generate an appropriate response to the request, e.g., an output or an indication that the processing has been completed. Then, the executor 106 can return the response to the client 102…; [0039]- [0040] ...The system can maintain a status of each device, e.g., using the executor 106 of FIG. 1. Each device can be either busy or available. A device is busy if the device is currently performing other operations and cannot be assigned further operations or is otherwise unavailable to perform graph processing operations. The device is available if the device can be assigned further operations, e.g., the further operations can be queued for operation by the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a set of computations to statuses to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 3, which incorporate the rejection of claim 2, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that a given computation is completed.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that a given computation is completed (paragraph [0040], wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets “The device is available if the device can be assigned further operations, e.g., the further operations can be queued for operation by the device” to teach the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a given completed computation to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 4, which incorporate the rejection of claim 3, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed (paragraph [0040], wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets “A device is busy if the device is currently performing other operations and cannot be assigned further operations” to teach the limitation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a given completed computation to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 5, which incorporate the rejection of claim 4, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein a third status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein a third status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started (paragraph [0040], wherein using the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets “the further operations can be queued for operation by the device” to teach the limitation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a computation that has not yet started to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 6, which incorporate the rejection of claim 5, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the entity context is transferred from the first node to the second node after each computation with the second status is completed.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the entity context is transferred from the first node to the second node after each computation with the second status is completed (paragraph [0009] An outgoing edge from a node represents a flow of an output of the operation represented by the node to be used as an input to an operation represented by another node. Thus, a directed edge connecting a first node in the graph to a second node in the graph indicates that an output generated by the operation represented by the first node is used as an input to the operation represented by the second node.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a computation that has not yet started to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 7, which incorporate the rejection of claim 5, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the entity context transferred to the second node includes one or more computations with the third status completed.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the entity context transferred to the second node includes one or more computations with the third status completed (paragraphs [0009] An outgoing edge from a node represents a flow of an output of the operation represented by the node to be used as an input to an operation represented by another node. Thus, a directed edge connecting a first node in the graph to a second node in the graph indicates that an output generated by the operation represented by the first node is used as an input to the operation represented by the second node; [0040] …The system can connect to numerous devices, e.g., in a data center. The system can maintain a status of each device, e.g., using the executor 106 of FIG. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a computation that has not yet started to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 9, which incorporate the rejection of claim 5, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the transferred context further comprises parameters associated with the set of computations.
Tucker, in combination with, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the transferred context further comprises parameters associated with the set of computations (paragraphs [0008] …. the computational graph can be more easily partitioned for parallel operations than the conventional neural network representation. By way of illustration, subgraphs of the computational graph can be assigned to unique devices, each of which performs operations in the respective subgraph, to reduce an overall time required to perform operations of the neural network…; [0019] …operations necessary to train the neural network by performing a neural network training procedure to adjust the values of the parameters of the neural network, e.g., to determine trained values of the parameters from initial values of the parameters…; [0029]-[0030] …. Client 102 can request an indication that the requested neural network training operations have been completed and, optionally, trained values of the parameters of the neural network or an indication of a memory location from which the trained values can be accessed by the client 102...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add parameters to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 10, which incorporate the rejection of claim 9, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the parameters for the given computation comprise at least one of model parameters for the given computation and outputs from other computation.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the parameters for the given computation comprise at least one of model parameters for the given computation and outputs from other computations (paragraphs [0028]-[0029] Client 102 can request an indication that the requested neural network training operations (i.e., model parameters) have been completed and, optionally, trained values of the parameters of the neural network (i.e., model parameters) or an indication of a memory location from which the trained values can be accessed by the client 102...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add parameters to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 11, which incorporate the rejection of claim 10, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein parameters that are outputs of other computations that serve as inputs to computations with the third status are transferred as part of the entity context.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein parameters that are outputs of other computations that serve as inputs to computations with the third status are transferred as part of the entity context (paragraphs [0016] …An outgoing edge from a node represents a flow of an output of the operation represented by the node to be used as an input to an operation represented by another node. Thus, a directed edge connecting a first node in the graph to a second node in the graph indicates that an output generated by the operation represented by the first node is used as an input to the operation represented by the second node; [0040] ...The system can maintain a status of each device, e.g., using the executor 106 of FIG. 1. Each device can be either busy or available. A device is busy if the device is currently performing other operations and cannot be assigned further operations or is otherwise unavailable to perform graph processing operations. The device is available if the device can be assigned further operations, e.g., the further operations can be queued for operation by the device); wherein using the broadest reasonable interprets “connect to numerous devices”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add parameters to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 12, which incorporate the rejection of claim 9, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein, when the application comprises an artificial intelligence model used for inference, no model parameters are necessarily part of the transferred entity context.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein, when the application comprises an artificial intelligence model (i.e. neural network) used for inference, no model parameters are necessarily part of the transferred entity context (paragraphs [0008] …Operations, e.g., an operation to generate an inference from an input, of a neural network can be represented as a computational graph of nodes and directed edges…; [0019] …the operations represented by the computational graph may be operations necessary for the neural network to compute an inference, i.e., to process an input through the layers of the neural network to generate a neural network output for the input…; [0027]-[0029]…a computational graph representing an inference for a particular neural network and can identify an input on which the inference should be performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add an artificial intelligence model used for inference to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 13, which incorporate the rejection of claim 9, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein, when the application comprises an artificial intelligence model used for training, model parameters of at least computations with the first status and the third status are part of the transferred entity context.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein, when the application comprises an artificial intelligence model (i.e. neural network) used for training, model parameters of at least computations with the first status and the third status are part of the transferred entity context (paragraphs [0028]-[0029] Client 102 can request an indication that the requested neural network training operations have been completed and, optionally, trained values of the parameters of the neural network or an indication of a memory location from which the trained values can be accessed by the client 102...; [0032] …devices are configured to only perform a particular type of operation, e.g., inference operations. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add an artificial intelligence model to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 16, which incorporate the rejection of claim 15, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the maintaining step further comprises setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the maintaining step further comprises setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations (paragraphs [0035] After the devices perform the operations allocated by the placer 108 generate outputs, the executor 106 can retrieve the outputs. The executor 106 can generate an appropriate response to the request, e.g., an output or an indication that the processing has been completed. Then, the executor 106 can return the response to the client 102…; [0039]- [0040] ...The system can maintain a status of each device, e.g., using the executor 106 of FIG. 1. Each device can be either busy or available. A device is busy if the device is currently performing other operations and cannot be assigned further operations or is otherwise unavailable to perform graph processing operations. The device is available if the device can be assigned further operations, e.g., the further operations can be queued for operation by the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a set of computations to statuses to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 17, which incorporate the rejection of claim 2, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that given computation is completed, a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed, and a third status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein a first status of the plurality of statuses represents that given computation is completed, a second status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has started but not yet completed, and a third status of the plurality of statuses represents that the given computation has not yet started (see claims 3-5 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a given completed computation to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 20, which incorporate the rejection of claim 19, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the maintaining step further comprises setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the maintaining step further comprises setting each of the set of status indicators for the set of computations to one of a plurality of statuses based on the indicated execution state of each of the computations (paragraphs [0035] After the devices perform the operations allocated by the placer 108 generate outputs, the executor 106 can retrieve the outputs. The executor 106 can generate an appropriate response to the request, e.g., an output or an indication that the processing has been completed. Then, the executor 106 can return the response to the client 102…; [0039]- [0040] ...The system can maintain a status of each device, e.g., using the executor 106 of FIG. 1. Each device can be either busy or available. A device is busy if the device is currently performing other operations and cannot be assigned further operations or is otherwise unavailable to perform graph processing operations. The device is available if the device can be assigned further operations, e.g., the further operations can be queued for operation by the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a set of computations to statuses to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
As to claim 21, which incorporate the rejection of claim 20, Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA fail to explicitly teach wherein the entity context is transferred from the first node to the second node after each computation with the second status is completed, and wherein the entity context transferred to the second node includes one or more computations with the third status.
Tucker, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, teaches wherein the entity context is transferred from the first node to the second node after each computation with the second status is completed, and wherein the entity context transferred to the second node includes one or more computations with the third status (paragraphs [0009] An outgoing edge from a node represents a flow of an output of the operation represented by the node to be used as an input to an operation represented by another node. Thus, a directed edge connecting a first node in the graph to a second node in the graph indicates that an output generated by the operation represented by the first node is used as an input to the operation represented by the second node; [0040] …The system can connect to numerous devices, e.g., in a data center. The system can maintain a status of each device, e.g., using the executor 106 of FIG. 1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA to add a computation that has not yet started to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter and GOENKA, as taught by Tucker, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have each node containing information specifying an operation type, a name, and a list of incoming and outgoing edges to the node, as suggested by Tucker ([0039]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al. (US 2022/0078601 A1, hereinafter referred to as Poornachandran), in view of Hunter (US 11,132,403 B2, hereinafter referred to as Hunter), and further in view of GOENKA et al. (US 2022/0007437 A1, hereinafter referred to as GOENKA) and Tucker et al. (US 2020/0302302 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tucker) and Suzuki (US 5,884,077, hereinafter referred to as Suzuki).
As to claim 8, which incorporate the rejection of claim 5, Poornachandran, Hunter, GOENKA and Tucker fail to explicitly teach wherein the maintaining step further comprises changing one or more computations with the second status to the third status prior to the one or more computations being completed, based on a timing demand associated with the context transfer.
Suzuki, in combination with Poornachandran, Hunter, GOENKA and Tucker, teaches wherein the maintaining step further comprises changing one or more computations with the second status to the third status prior to the one or more computations being completed, based on a timing demand associated with the context transfer (col. 10, lines 26-57…In step S103, the control of a process which is being operated and a process which is scheduled to be operated in the processor 303 is transferred to another processor….; col. 14, lines 16-34…The processor migration decision processing is started at the on-demand timing of page securing and at the timing of a change in load on the processor (a change in the number of processes in a ready state) upon process scheduling or upon generation/deletion of a process…; col. 15, lines 37-42…When a process is generated and started and physical pages are to be secured at on-demand timings, if no more pages can be secured on the computer on which the process runs, a computer from which physical pages are to be secured is determined on the basis of the acquired memory scheduling information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter, GOENKA and Tucker to add a timing demand to the combination system of Poornachandran, Hunter, GOENKA and Tucker, as taught by Suzuki, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have a processor migration decision processing checks which is more efficient to proceed with execution of the process by the current processor or to migrate the control of the processor of another computer and to execute the process by the migrated processor, as suggested by Suzuki (col.15, lines 43-55).
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. The 101 rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-21 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Argument (pages 10-11)
With respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 1-20, Applicant respectfully traverses on the ground that claims 1-20, as originally filed, recite statutory subject matter. More particularly, the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and even if one were to assume for purposes of argument only that the claims did recite an abstract idea, the claims clearly integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement in a technical field, namely, the field of computer technology (page10).
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 "when read as a whole" is instead directed to "a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology." See Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22825 (Fed. Cir. 2024), citing McRO, Inc., v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (page 10).
The Examiner alleges with regard to Step 2A of the USPTO analysis framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea because it allegedly recites "mental processes" and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
This is believed to be an incorrect interpretation of claim 1, particularly in view of the
recent decision in Ex Parte Desjardins et al., No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Appeals Review Panel, September 26, 2025), which states that "[c]ategorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology," and further states that improvements to how a machine learning model itself operates, including training of a machine learning model, represent improvements to computer functionality.
Accordingly, even if one assumes for purposes of argument only that claim 1 could
somehow be construed as reciting an abstract idea, such claims are not directed to an abstract idea for reasons similar to those set forth in the above-cited Ex Parte Desjardins decision, as claim 1 clearly integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application that provides improvements in computer technology. (page 10).
.
In view of the above portions of the July 2024 Updated Guidance, Applicant submits that claim 1 cannot reasonably be said to be directed to mathematical concepts and mental processes as alleged, at least in part because the claim does not recite particular mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, and furthermore because the claim explicitly incorporates AI-related recitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind (page 11).
The Examiner further alleges with regard to Step 2B of the above USPTO analysis
framework that claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. However, claim 1 clearly recites an arrangement providing an improvement in computer technology, as stated above (page 11).
Independent claim 1 is directed to an AI (machine learning) invention that provides a
particular solution to an important problem in the technological field of machine learning.
Accordingly, even if one assumes for purposes of argument only that the claim could somehow be construed as reciting an abstract idea, it clearly integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application that provides an improvement in computer technology, as stated above (page 12).
For the reasons set forth above, it is believed that this burden has not been met in the present § 101 rejection. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the § 101 rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.
Notwithstanding the foregoing traversal, independent claims 1, 15 and 18 have been
amended as described below to further clarify that these claims do not recite mathematical concepts or mental processes, and instead recite a practical application in the form of a particular solution to a problem in a technological field (page 12-13).
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claimed “determining” is an observation or evaluation based on at least one entity is moving that moves from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node.
This type of observation or evaluation is an act that can be practically performed in the human mind, similar to the mental thought processes that occur when a person determining whether one entity is moving that moves from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Examiner interpreted this limitation as an observation. See MPEP 2106.04(a), particularly MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claimed “determining” is an observation or evaluation based an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks associated with the at least one entity.
This type of observation or evaluation is an act that can be practically performed in the human mind, similar to the mental thought processes that occur when a person determines whether an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks is associated with the at least one entity. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Examiner interpreted this limitation as an observation. See MPEP 2106.04(a), particularly MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claimed “maintaining (i.e., managing) is an observation or evaluation based an entity context associated with the at least one entity at the first node, the entity context comprising at least a set of computations associated with a computation graph.”
This type of observation or evaluation is an act that can be practically performed in the human mind, similar to the mental thought processes that occur when a person maintains (i.e., manages) an entity context comprising a set of computations associated with a computation graph. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Examiner interpreted this limitation as an observation. See MPEP 2106.04(a), particularly MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The claimed “determining” is an observation or evaluation based a time in which to transfer the entity context based on the one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system and the movement of the at least one entity.”
This type of observation or evaluation is an act that can be practically performed in the human mind, similar to the mental thought processes that occur when a person determines whether an artificial intelligence framework from a plurality of selectable artificial intelligence frameworks is associated with the at least one entity. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Examiner interpreted this limitation as an observation. See MPEP 2106.04(a), particularly MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The newly added claim features do not improve the functionality of a computer or any technology (see rejection above).
The additional elements of “an information processing system with at least a first node and a second node separated from the first node, and each of the first node and the second node are configured to execute an application, the first node determining that at least one entity is moving that moves from a geographic proximity of the first node to a geographic proximity of the second node by listening to one or more network notifications associated with the at least one entity in the information processing system, and in response to the determining that the at least one entity is moving to the geographic proximity of the second node,” “enable the second node to continue execution of one or more computations of the set of computations of the application using the transferred entity context from the first node within the real-time transfer threshold,” “executes the computer program instructions,” “processor and memory" do not amount to significantly more for the reasons set forth in step 2A above.
For the dependent claims 2-13, 16-17 and 19-21, no further arguments were presented, Examiner respectfully maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections upon them, due to their nature of dependence upon their respective independent claims 1, 15 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-13, and 15-21 are directed to an abstract idea and, as such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Argument (page 13)
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 15 and 18, Applicant respectfully traverses on the ground that the teachings of Poomachandran, Kalra, and Hunter fail to disclose or suggest each and every limitation of claims 1, 15 and 18, arranged as recited in those claims, and on the further ground that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the collective teachings of Poomachandran, Kalra, and Hunter in a manner that would reach these limitations.
Moreover, there is insufficient teaching or suggestion in these references regarding the
proposed combination, and as indicated above the Chen reference directly teaches away from the proposed combination. It therefore appears that the Examiner is applying hindsight-based reasoning by using Applicant's claimed invention as a guide to select and combine disparate references.
The Tucker, Suzuki and Prakash references are similarly deficient in this regard, and the §103 rejections of claims 2-8, 9-14, 16, 17, 19 and is therefore also respectfully traversed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing traversal of the § 103 rejections, Applicant has amended the claims without prejudice and solely in order to expedite prosecution. The claim amendments herein are not made for reasons relating to patentability over the Poomchandran, Kalra, Tucker, Suzuki and Prakash references, or any other prior art references of record, as the claims as originally presented are believed to recite patentable subject matter over these references.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. About the hindsight-based reasoning: per MPEP, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper."
Examiner did rely on the teaching of the prior arts which is within the level of ordinary in
the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned from applicant's disclosure.
Poomachandran, Hunter, and GOENKA disclose or suggest each and every limitation of claims 1, 15 and 18.
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection: GOENKA et al. (US 2022/0007437 A1). Therefore, the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 15 and 18 is respectfully maintained.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABABACAR SECK whose telephone number is (571)270-7146. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M..
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, Lamardo Viker can be reached on 57127237195871. 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.
/ABABACAR SECK/Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights