DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 8/27/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 8, 14 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 20200374974, hereinafter Sun), in view of DeLuca et al (US 20180033312, hereinafter DeLuca), in view of Hannu et al (US 2022027186, hereinafter Hannu), and further in view of Kurdi et al (US 20170131727, hereinafter Kurdi).
As per claim 1, Sun discloses: A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, information associated with a data processing task; (Sun [0024]: “the requests from the first user equipment 102 and the second user equipment 104 may indicate one or more performance requirements and/or other constraints associated with the requested session(s) (e.g., requirements related to latency, bandwidth, security, location, connectivity or mobility, cost, persistent storage, and/or the like), and these constraints may be evaluated by the MEC orchestration platform to determine one or more MEC hosts to be assigned to the corresponding application workloads”.)
determining, by the one or more processors, a first computational loading associated with the data processing task relative to a capacity of a first device; (Sun [0025]: “in the case of the first user equipment 102, the MEC orchestration platform may determine that at least a portion of the corresponding application workload is to be distributed to one or more of the shared MEC hosts based on determining that the MEC host co-located with the base station in communication with the first user equipment 102 does not have sufficient MEC resources available to meet the performance requirements of the application workload for the first user equipment”.)
determining, by the one or more computer processors, that the second device can support the first computational loading; (Sun [0020]: “the profile that is registered for the shared MEC host may include information related to the one or more performance metrics for the shared MEC host. For example, the profile may indicate the performance capabilities that the third-party provider indicated when submitting the request to the MEC orchestration platform, benchmarking results obtained from the MEC orchestration platform causing the test workloads to be executed on the shared MEC host, and/or the like. In some cases, the MEC orchestration platform may register the profile for the shared MEC host only if the benchmarking results obtained from the MEC orchestration platform causing the test workloads to be executed on the shared MEC host satisfy one or more minimum performance requirements (e.g., to avoid onboarding MEC resources that may be insufficient to handle performance requirements associated with application workloads to be processed using MEC resources).”)
and completing the data processing task using the first device and the second device. (Sun [0030]: “an application workload for the first user equipment 102 includes a first portion that is assigned to the MEC host that is co-located with the base station in communication with the first user equipment 102, and a second portion that is assigned to a shared MEC host closest to the first user equipment 102. In this way, MEC resources of the MEC host that is co-located with the base station in communication with the first user equipment 102 and the shared MEC host closest to the first user equipment 102 may be aggregated to support the application workload of the first user equipment 102 while ensuring that the third-party provider does not have access to the full application workload.”.)
Sun did not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining that the second device can support the first computational loading comprises determining that a current battery state of the second device is sufficient to process the first computational loading and relocate the second device to the first location;
sending, by the one or more processors, the first computational loading and a first location to a second device;
instructing, by the one or more processors, the second device to relocate to the first location according to the determination that the second device can support the first computational loading;
relocating the second device to the first location;
However, De Luca teaches:
sending, by the one or more computer processors, the first computational loading and a first location to a second device; (DeLuca [0011]: “plural UAVs that are independently recording an event within an area discover one another, and a collaboration agreement between the UAVs (or between the operators of the UAVs) is established to record different portions of the event and to share those recordings with each other. In embodiments, after an initial discovery process between the UAVs, the operators are connected via software on their control device or mobile application. At this point the operators can negotiate a collaboration agreement to which the UAVs will adhere. This may include division of work, coverage boundaries (e.g., specific regions within the area or specific angles at which subjects participating in the event may be recorded), and data sharing, which enable the task to be completed more effectively. One or more UAVs may be dynamically added/removed from the collaboration as UAVs enter/exit the area or otherwise indicate a desire to participate in the collaboration. In aspects, the UAVs are permitted to record their agreed-upon portions in any way that they (the UAVs) or their operators see fit, and are not assigned specific tasks or instructions outside of their agreed-upon portions.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of DeLuca into that of Sun in order to send, by the one or more computer processors, the first computational loading and a first location to a second device. DeLuca has shown that the concept of having UAVs act as a MEC base station to help accelerate tasks from devices is well known concept in the field. DeLuca has further shown that it is commonly known that UAVs may improve coverage or service by creating ad hoc network, such combination would improve the service provided and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Hannu teaches:
instructing, by the one or more processors, the second device to relocate to the first location according to the determination that the second device can support the first computational loading; relocating the second device to the first location; (Hannu [0120]: “the user terminal emulation server may determine that a microphone but not a camera is available at a particular location for use in a video call that requires both audio and video capability. The user terminal emulation server can then determine that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) having a camera UI capability can be relocated to the particular location, and responsive control the unmanned aerial vehicle to relocate. The control operations may correspond to transmitting a command containing the particular location to an unmanned aerial vehicle management module or to the unmanned aerial vehicle to initiate movement, or may correspond to providing more real-time guidance while the unmanned aerial vehicle flies to the particular location.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hannu into that of Sun and DeLuca in order to instruct the second device to relocate to the first location according to the determination that the second device can support the first computational loading; and relocating the second device to the first location. Hannu has shown that a server may first determine capability of a UAV and then task the UAV to the desired area allows for efficient directing of UAV, such combination would improve the service provided and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Kurdi teaches:
wherein determining that the second device can support the first computational loading comprises determining that a current battery state of the second device is sufficient to process the first computational loading and relocate the second device to the first location; (Kurdi [0041] - [0042])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kurdi into that of Sun, DeLuca and Hannu in order to determine that the second device can support the first computational loading comprises determining that a current battery state of the second device is sufficient to process the first computational loading and relocate the second device to the first location. Hannu [0120] teaches determining if the UAV has the necessary hardware and software to support a desired task before causing the UAV to be deployed and maneuvered to the location. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other indicators can be used to determine capability of a UAV and then task the UAV to the desired area allows for efficient directing of UAV, such as based on the battery level of the UAV, such combination would improve the service provided and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi further teach:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: creating, by the one or more processes, a communications network between the first device and the second device; and deploying, by the one or more computer processors, the first device to the first location. (DeLuca [0070] – [0072])
As per claim 4, the combination of Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi further teach:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that a plurality of second devices can support the first computational loading; and selecting a second device from the plurality of second devices according a second device location and second device available resources. (Sun [0023] – [0024])
As per claim 5, the combination of Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi further teach:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising deploying the first device to a base location. (Sun [0025])
As per claim 6, the combination of Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi further teach:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising executing, by the one or more processors, a number of communication iterations between the first device and the second device. (DeLuca [0030])
As per claim 7, the combination of Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi further teach:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that a third device can support the first computational loading; deploying, by the one or more processors, the third device to the first location; and completing the first computational task using the first device, the second device, and the third device. (Deluca [0055])
As per claim 8, it is computer program product variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it is computer program product variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it is computer program product variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is computer program product variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is computer program product variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is computer program product variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is system variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is system variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is system variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is system variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi, and further in view of Anderson et al (US 20150143364, hereinafter Anderson).
As per claim 3, the combination of Sun, DeLuca and Hannu did not teach:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising determining that the second device can support the first computational loading according to a second device computational loading.
However, Anderson teaches:
The computer implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising determining that the second device can support the first computational loading according to a second device computational loading. (Anderson figure 5, step 520 and [0080])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Anderson into that of Sun, DeLuca, Hannu and Kurdi in order to determine that the second device can support the first computational loading according to a second device computational loading. Anderson has shown that determining if the destination node has enough capacity to handle a migrating task is commonly known and used step in determining optimal host for a task, Applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 10, it is computer program product variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights