DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed 02/27/26, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awad Alla et al. (U.S. 10838416) in view of Gehrling et al. (U.S. 11861407).
For claim 1, Awad Alla et al. disclose a method implemented using a processor, comprising:
determining that a location of a computing device of a distributed computing system satisfies a location criterion (at least col. 6, lines 4-39. The computer 32 receives location data, e.g., GPS or local coordinates, of the vehicle 30. The location data may be received from, e.g., GPS sensors of the sensors 60. The computer 32 determines whether the vehicle 30 has entered the geofenced area 34. The computer 32 has the geofenced area 34 stored in memory and determines whether the location data indicates that the vehicle 30 is located inside the geofenced area 34.);
based on satisfaction of the location criterion, identifying a task associated with the location criterion (at least Col. 8, lines 911. If the vehicle 30 has entered the geofenced area 34, the vehicle 30, specifically, the autonomous-vehicle computer 48, switches from the manual mode to the autonomous mode.) However, Awad Alla et al. do not disclose shifting performance of the task from a location-agnostic computing device of the distributed computing system to the computing device automatically upon satisfaction of the location criterion.
In the same field of endeavor, Gehrling et al. disclose shifting performance of the task from a location-agnostic computing device of the distributed computing system to the computing device automatically upon satisfaction of the location criterion (at least Col. 4, lines 41-59. In the case of a vehicle serving as a mobile end device as set forth in the present disclosure, the control unit can be part of the central control unit for the vehicle, or it can be a separate control unit, designed to monitor the network (edge computer and/or cloud computer) within the reception range of the vehicle; monitor the system applications within the vehicle; manage the computing power within the vehicle, and offload computing power from the vehicle to at least one near edge computer and/or at least one remote cloud computer (of the potentially numerous edge and cloud computers).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Awad Alla et al. as taught by Gehrling et al. for purpose of ensuring an efficient utilization of computing capacity among the networked vehicles and an improved execution of possible system applications in the networked mobile end devices.
For claim 4, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Awad Alla et al. disclose the computing device comprises an autonomous vehicle (at least Col. 8, lines 911. If the vehicle 30 has entered the geofenced area 34, the vehicle 30, specifically, the autonomous-vehicle computer 48, switches from the manual mode to the autonomous mode.)
For claim 5, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Awad Alla et al. disclose the location criterion comprises a geo-fence (at least col. 6, lines 4-39. The computer 32 receives location data, e.g., GPS or local coordinates, of the vehicle 30. The location data may be received from, e.g., GPS sensors of the sensors 60. The computer 32 determines whether the vehicle 30 has entered the geofenced area 34. The computer 32 has the geofenced area 34 stored in memory and determines whether the location data indicates that the vehicle 30 is located inside the geofenced area 34.)
For claim 6, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Gehrling et al. disclose detecting a label associated with the computing device, wherein the label indicates that the computing device should perform the task upon entering a space associated with the location criterion (at least Col. 4, lines 41-59. In the case of a vehicle serving as a mobile end device as set forth in the present disclosure, the control unit can be part of the central control unit for the vehicle, or it can be a separate control unit, designed to monitor the network (edge computer and/or cloud computer) within the reception range of the vehicle; monitor the system applications within the vehicle; manage the computing power within the vehicle, and offload computing power from the vehicle to at least one near edge computer and/or at least one remote cloud computer (of the potentially numerous edge and cloud computers).)
For claim 7, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Awad Alla et al. disclose the computing device is a mobile computing device, and the determining includes determining that the mobile computing device has entered a space associated with the location criterion (at least col. 6, lines 4-39. The computer 32 receives location data, e.g., GPS or local coordinates, of the vehicle 30. The location data may be received from, e.g., GPS sensors of the sensors 60. The computer 32 determines whether the vehicle 30 has entered the geofenced area 34. The computer 32 has the geofenced area 34 stored in memory and determines whether the location data indicates that the vehicle 30 is located inside the geofenced area 34.)
For claim 9, the claim has features similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
For claim 13, the claim has features similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
For claim 18, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. disclose the method of claim 13. Gehrling et al. disclose the computing device is a part of a distributed computing system (at least col. 1, lines 19-24. The present disclosure relates to methods and control units for a mobile end device (e.g. a vehicle) for offloading computational tasks from mobile end device to at least one edge cloud computer and/or at least one cloud computer via a network, a mobile end device (e.g. a vehicle), and a network, preferably a vehicle network, which has numerous networked mobile end devices, e.g. vehicles.)
Claims 2-3, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Awad Alla et al. (U.S. 10838416) in view of Gehrling et al. (U.S. 11861407) and further in view of Pinheiro et al. (U.S. 20200021355).
For claim 2, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the distributed computing system is a hierarchal distributed system, and the computing device comprises an edge server of the hierarchal distributed computing system, wherein a plurality of endpoint computing devices connect to the edge server.
In the same field of endeavor, Pinheiro et al. disclose the distributed computing system is a hierarchal distributed system, and the computing device comprises an edge server of the hierarchal distributed computing system, wherein a plurality of endpoint computing devices connect to the edge server (at least [0026]. Relay device, Vehicle B serves as a protocol converter, meaning that when Vehicle B receives a message that was transmitted using some RAT or RATs, Vehicle B will convert and retransmit that message in at least one different RAT so that other devices in the group that don't support the original RAT(s) can receive the message. For example, if Vehicle C transmits a BSM using DSRC, Vehicle A would be unable to receive the BSM because Vehicle C only supports LTE and 5G RATs. Vehicle B, acting as relay device, converts the message to either or both LTE and 5G and retransmits the message in the selected RAT(s) so that Vehicle A can receive the message. Of course, as the vehicles move through the area, different devices may be selected as relay devices according to one of three different selection modes: device collaborative, central control, and independent.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Awad Alla et al. as taught by Pinheiro et al. for purpose of retransmitting a message.
For claim 3, the combination of Awad Alla et al., and Gehrling et al. and Pinheiro et al. disclose the method of claim 2. Pinheiro et al. disclose wherein the task comprises a server application to serve corresponding client applications on the plurality of endpoint computing devices (at least [0026]. Relay device, Vehicle B serves as a protocol converter, meaning that when Vehicle B receives a message that was transmitted using some RAT or RATs, Vehicle B will convert and retransmit that message in at least one different RAT so that other devices in the group that don't support the original RAT(s) can receive the message. For example, if Vehicle C transmits a BSM using DSRC, Vehicle A would be unable to receive the BSM because Vehicle C only supports LTE and 5G RATs. Vehicle B, acting as relay device, converts the message to either or both LTE and 5G and retransmits the message in the selected RAT(s) so that Vehicle A can receive the message. Of course, as the vehicles move through the area, different devices may be selected as relay devices according to one of three different selection modes: device collaborative, central control, and independent.)
For claim 12, the claim has features similar to claim 2. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 2.
For claim 16, the claim has features similar to claim 2. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 2.
For claim 19, the claim has features similar to claim 2. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 2.
For claim 20, the claim has features similar to claim 3. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 3.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Awad Alla et al. (U.S. 10838416) in view of Gehrling et al. (U.S. 11861407) and in view of Liu et al. (U.S. 20150373606).
For claim 8, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, the shifting comprises transmitting, to the computing device, computer-readable instructions that are executable by the computing device to perform the task.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. disclose the shifting comprises transmitting, to the computing device, computer-readable instructions that are executable by the computing device to perform the task (at least [0111]. If the base station detects that the UE moves into a coverage area of the AP, the load of the AP is low, and various offload conditions are satisfied, according to various assistance information, e.g., a measurement of the base station, a report of the UE, etc., then the base station configures the UE, and instructs the UE to offload a part or all of DRBs/data stream to the WLAN link for transmission.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Awad Alla et al. as taught by Liu et al. for purpose of ensuring the capability of the user transmitting data via an optimized network, and improving the quality of data transmission.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Awad Alla et al. (U.S. 10838416) in view of Gehrling et al. (U.S. 11861407) and in view of Jessen (U.S. 20240046388).
For claim 14, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. do not disclose the computing device of claim 13, wherein the computing device comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”), and the constraint comprises a bounded two-dimensional or three-dimensional space.
In the same field of endeavor, Jessen disclose wherein the computing device comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”), and the constraint comprises a bounded two-dimensional or three-dimensional space (at least claim 5 and 15. To determine that the UAV has arrived at the location; and switch from an autonomous control mode to a manual control mode at least partly in response to the UAV arriving at the location. The location data is based at least partly on one or more geolocation markers along a predefined path.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Awad Alla et al. as taught by Jessen for purpose of switching from an autonomous control mode to a manual control mode.
For claim 15, the combination of Awad Alla et al., Gehrling et al. and Jessen disclose the computing device of claim 14. Awad Alla et al. disclose to download, from another computing device in response to the determination, computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform the existing task within the constraint (Col. 8, lines 12-28. The computer 32 instructs the vehicle 30 to follow the command received from the remote server 38. The command can include one or more locations to which the vehicle 30 is instructed to travel, and can also include other conditions or requirements associated with the locations, e.g., waiting for a period of time at a location for a passenger before leaving to travel to a different location. The autonomous-vehicle computer 48 can autonomously operate the vehicle 30 to fulfill the command using the propulsion 50, the brake system 52, and the steering system 54. If the computer 32 is located at the remote server 38, the instruction to follow the command can accompany the command itself transmitted to the vehicle 30. If the computer 32 is located in the vehicle 30, the vehicle 30 can enter a mode in which the vehicle 30 will follow commands from the remote server 38.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Awad Alla et al. (U.S. 10838416) in view of Gehrling et al. (U.S. 11861407) and in view of Fraccaroli (U.S. 20180227959).
For claim 17, the combination of Awad Alla et al. and Gehrling et al. do not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the location criterion comprises a geo-fence centered about another mobile computing device.
In the same field of endeavor, Fraccaroli discloses the location criterion comprises a geo-fence centered about another mobile computing device (at least [0044], [0047] and [0249].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Awad Alla et al. as taught by Fraccaroli for purpose of providing a response to one or more location-based services applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAI PHUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights