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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 12-16 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110868455 A (as witnessed by the attached translation) herein D1 in view of US 20170013495 A1 herein Chae.
Claim 1, D1 discloses A method of a terminal for performing task offloading with at least one satellite in a multiaccess edge computing (MEC) network, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring at least one initial input value (Pg. 2: second last paragraph, multiple values and inputs in the model for task unloading);
acquiring information needed for determining whether or not to perform task offloading, from the at least one satellite in time slot t (Pg. 3: second paragraph, time slot and information regarding task unloading/offloading);
setting a first object function of a case where task offloading is not performed (Pg. 3: second paragraph, local task execution) and a second object function of a case where task offloading is performed (Pg. 3: second paragraph, task offloading to a satellite) on the basis of information on the terminal and the information needed for determining whether or not to perform task offloading acquired from the at least one satellite in time slot t (Pg. 3: second paragraph, local task execution (information on the terminal) and time slot and information regarding task unloading/offloading);
acquiring a minimum value of the first object function and a minimum value of the second object function, and (Pg. 3: last paragraph, power values and slot values); and
determining whether or not to perform task offloading to the at least one satellite in time slot t according to a result of the comparison (Pg. 2: S9, determining task offload and power allocation strategy).
D1 may not explicitly disclose comparing the minimum value of the first object function and the minimum value of the second object function and determining whether or not to perform according to a result of comparing the minimum value of the first object function and minimum value of the second object function.
D2 discloses comparing the minimum value of the first object function and the minimum value of the second object function (0231, a comparison is made with respect to BS transmission power for the local computations versus BS transmission power for offloading, the minimum values are compared; Fig. 9) and determining whether or not to perform according to a result of comparing the minimum value of the first object function and minimum value of the second object function (0231, comparison of the minimum values leads to a suggestion that offloading would be proper). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 to include comparison of minimum values for task offloading and local computation as taught by D2 so as to save on transmission resources (0231).
Claim 9, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. D1 discloses a terminal (Pg. 1, Abstract, terminal).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Chae in view of CN 115022894 A (as witnessed by the attached translation) herein D2.
Claim 2, D1 may not explicitly disclose The method according to claim 1. D1 may not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one initial input value includes at least one among an amount y of CPU resources used per bit, required to process a task, 19 parameter w for balancing CPU power of each of the terminal and the at least one satellite, and parameter J for balancing energy consumption and latency of the MEC network.
D2 discloses disclose wherein the at least one initial input value includes at least one among an amount y of CPU resources used per bit, required to process a task, 19 parameter w for balancing CPU power of each of the terminal and the at least one satellite, and parameter J for balancing energy consumption and latency of the MEC network (Pg. 4, CPU cycles for 1 bit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 to include CPU resources as taught by D2 so as to solve the issues dealing with offloading with lower complexity (Pg. 19: second paragraph).
Claim 3, D1 discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the information on the terminal includes at least one among a CPU processing speed cu(t) of the terminal in time slot t, a CPU processing queue backlog Q'(t) of the terminal, a transmission power pu of the terminal to the at least one satellite, and a processing amount b(t) transferred from the terminal to the at least one satellite, and the information needed for determining whether or not to perform task offloading acquired from the at least one satellite includes at least one among a CPU processing speed cs(t) of the at least one satellite, and a CPU processing queue backlog QS(t) of the at least one satellite, and b(t) is determined based on a distance d(t) between the terminal and the at least one satellite in time slot t (Pg. 6, buffer size of the device).
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230156826 A1 - Various approaches for the integration and use of edge computing operations in satellite communication environments are discussed herein. For example, connectivity and computing approaches are discussed with reference to: identifying satellite coverage and compute operations available in low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, establishing connection streams via LEO satellite networks, identifying and implementing geofences for LEO satellites, coordinating and planning data transfers across ephemeral satellite connected devices, service orchestration via LEO satellites based on data cost, handover of compute and data operations in LEO satellite networks, and managing packet processing, among other aspects.
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 pm. 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights