DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 have been examined and 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 .
Response to Remarks
Status of the Claims
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed December 30, 2025, the status of the claims was as follows:
Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 17, 20, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1, cited in IDS received April 23, 2024). Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) in view of KIM (US 20160373915 A1). Claim(s) 3, 9, 10, 13, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) in view of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1).
In response to the Non-Final Rejection, Applicants have amended independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 20, to incorporate limitations found in dependent claim(s) 7 and/or 17. Claim(s) 7 and 17 have been cancelled. Claim 10 has been amended to address 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraphs concerned raised in the Non-Final Rejection. Applicants have further presented arguments in light of the amendments made to said claims. The amendments and arguments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/ 35 USC § 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Applicants’ amendment and arguments presented in light of the rejection of claim 10, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention have been considered but are not persuasive. Please refer to the rejection of claim 10, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph below.
Prior Art Rejection(s) - 35 USC § 102/ 35 USC § 103
In response to the prior art rejection(s) of the claim(s) in the Non-Final Rejection, Applicants have amended each of independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 20. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of now cancelled dependent claim 7. Claim 11 has been amended to incorporate the limitation of the now cancelled claim 17. Claim 20 has been amended in a similar to claim 1, incorporating features of the now cancelled dependent claim 7. Further responsive to the prior art rejections, Applicants have presented arguments with respect to the amended independent claim(s) focusing on claim 1. Accordingly, the response to the arguments will focus on the same.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the following:
“1. A method for node selection for a distributed task, being applied to a master node among a plurality of nodes in a mobile communication network and comprising: transmitting, by the master node, first information to a child node in the mobile communication network, the first information indicating a capability requirement for a valid child node participating in the distributed task; and receiving, by the master node, second information transmitted by the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node participating in the distributed task, wherein the second information indicates that capability information of the child node satisfies capability information required for the valid child node and the child node requests to become the valid child node.”
Applicants argue that the prior art of record, DOSHI fails to anticipate claim 1, because DOSHI fails to disclose the limitation, “wherein the second information indicates that capability information of the child node satisfies capability information required for the valid child node and the child node requests to become the valid child node”. Applicants on [Remarks, Page(s) 11-12] further point to [DOSHI, Par. 114] where,
“DOSHI explains in paragraph [0114] that "[i]n the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has already accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of YES), control proceeds to block 416. Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has not accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of NO), the commitment determiner 226 transmits an indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204 and to the publisher 216. (Block 410)." Furthermore, in paragraph [0115] of DOSHI, it is explained that "[i]n response to the execution of the control illustrated in block 410, the component determined to execute the commitment (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224) processes the commitment. (Block 412). FIG. 4 of DOSHI is reproduced below…As can be seen above, after performing the determination illustrated in blocks 406 and 408, the commitment determiner transmits an indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204. Despite this disclosure, DOSHI is silent as to whether this indication is used by the commitment determiner to request participation in processing the commitment, or whether the indication itself signifies such a request. In fact, in DOSHI, after transmitting the indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204, the commitment determiner directly processes the commitment as a participant without making any request to the telemetry controller 130B to become a participant let alone obtaining permission to do so.”
Applicants appear to argue that the “indication of the accepted commitment” transmitted to the source manager 204 does not qualify as the claimed request because (1) is it not explicitly recited as or referred to as a request (“Despite this disclosure, DOSHI is silent as to whether this indication is used by the commitment determiner to request participation in processing the commitment, or whether the indication itself signifies such a request.”) and (2) because after transmitting the indication of the accepted commitment, acts as a participant (“…after transmitting the indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204, the commitment determiner directly processes the commitment as a participant without making any request to the telemetry controller 130B to become a participant let alone obtaining permission to do so…”).
In response to the argument that the “indication of the accepted commitment” transmitted by the commitment determiner to the source manager and/or publisher does not qualify as the claimed request because it is not explicitly recited as or referred to as a request, it is noted that it is believed that the indication of the accepted commitment implicitly acts as a request, because its transmission to the source manager and/or publisher is necessary in becoming verifying ability as a valid/viable, child node/participant, by accepting commitment. If the transmission of the indication was stated to be optional this argument would hold more weight, however this does not appear to be the case in the disclosure of DOSHI.
In response to the argument that the “indication of the accepted commitment” does not qualify as the claimed request because after transmitting the indication of the accepted commitment, acts as a participant (“…after transmitting the indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204, the commitment determiner directly processes the commitment as a participant without making any request to the telemetry controller 130B to become a participant let alone obtaining permission to do so…”) It is noted that the claim language does not preclude the child node as acting as a valid child node, after the transmission of the second information/request. With respect to the feature of precluding the child node as acting as a valid child node, after the transmission of the second information/request that the features upon which applicant relies, it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally with respect to this scenario where after transmitting the indication of the second information/accepted commitment, the transmitting node acts as a participant, this scenario appears to reflect the embodiments of Applicants invention shown in [Fig. 3] and [Fig. 5] which illustrate a single child node. Thus for the reasons explained the arguments have not been found persuasive and the prior art rejections have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites the term strongest capability. While claim 10, provides examples of types of capabilities (i.e. determining N child nodes with strongest capabilities among child nodes transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task… wherein the capability comprises at least one of: a computing capability, a storage capability, a transmission capability, and an energy capability), the term “strongest capability” in claim 10 is a relative term. The specification as originally filed does not provide any further guidance as what qualifies a capability as a strongest capability. The claim does not define the term. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1, cited in IDS received April 23, 2024).
In regards to claim 1, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) teaches a method for node selection for a distributed task, being applied to a master node among a plurality of nodes in a mobile communication network (See [Fig. 1] which illustrates a communication network, with a plurality of nodes, edge platforms 110, servers 112, endpoint 160 – endpoint 185, also see “[0105] FIG. 3 is a flowchart representative of a process 300 that may be implemented using logic or machine readable instructions that may be executed to implement the telemetry controller 130A-C of FIGS. 1 and/or 2 when a wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is obtained from a consumer. At block 302, the source manager 204 identifies whether there are new participants (e.g., the servers 112, 114, 116) in the cloud environment 105 and/or edge platforms in the edge environment 110 (e.g., the edge platforms 140, 150) of FIG. 1. In some examples, the control of 302 may include identifying whether there are additional endpoint devices in the endpoint environment 115 (e.g., the endpoint device 160, 165, 170, 175, 180, 185) of FIG. 1”. Furthermore with regards to the communication network being mobile, see “[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.” Additionally with respect to the nodes serving as a master node and/or a child node, refer to the method steps below) and comprising:
transmitting, by the master node, first information to a child node in the mobile communication network, the first information indicating a capability requirement for a valid child node participating in the distributed task (DOSHI teaches where a node regarded as a master node, transmits, “publishes”, first information indicating a capability requirement, “telemetry wish list” to a, another node, regarded as a child node, for participating in a distributed task. The child node is regarded as valid, based on whether the child node, commits to performing a task on the telemetry wish list “[0032]…a telemetry wish list, corresponds to a request by consumers (e.g., a user of telemetry data, another edge platform, and/or any suitable computing device) to initiate a task such as, for example, obtaining resource utilizations to migrate a service, migrate a tenant, offload a service, etc… To determine whether other edge platforms in the edge environment are capable of executing such a task, data relating to the tasks in the wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is brokered and obtained…[0106]…Alternatively, in the event the source manager 204 determines a wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is obtained (e.g., the control of block 306 returns a result of YES), the publisher 216 publishes the wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) to various components. (Block 308)… [0113] At block 406, the commitment determiner 226 determines whether it is viable for a component (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224 because, for example, the component of interest does not have the processing capabilities or is available) to accept a commitment. ”); and
receiving, by the master node, second information transmitted by the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node participating in the distributed task, wherein the second information indicates that the capability information of the child node satisfies capability information required for the valid child node and the child node requests to become the valid child node (DOSHI teaches where the master node receives, second information, acceptance of commitment , transmitted by the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node in participating in the distributed task, “[0113]… Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that it is viable for a component (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224) to accept a commitment (e.g., the control of block 406 returns a result of YES), the commitment determiner 226 further determines whether such a viable commitment has already been accepted by another component. (Block 408). For example, the commitment determiner 226 may determine that the extractor 220 is capable of accepting a commitment relating to extracting data. In such an example, the commitment determiner 226 identifies whether any other component (e.g., another extractor located in a separate telemetry controller) has already accepted such a commitment… [0114] In the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has already accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of YES), control proceeds to block 416. Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has not accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of NO), the commitment determiner 226 transmits an indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204 and to the publisher 216. (Block 410).” DOSHI teaches where the second information, indication of accepted commitment, indicates that the capability of the child nodes satisfies information required for the child node to qualify as a valid child node, as the indication is sent on the basis of a determination that child node qualifies the commitment as viable, and that the child node requests via the indication of accepted comment, to become a valid child node [Par. 113 – Par. 114]).
In regards to claim 20, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) teaches a master node, comprising: a processor; a transceiver connected with the processor; and a memory configured to store computer programs, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer programs stored in the memory to cause the transceiver to (“[0098] Flowchart representative of example hardware logic, machine readable instructions, hardware implemented state machines, and/or any combination thereof for implementing the telemetry controller 130A-C of FIGS. 1 and/or 2 are shown in FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8. The machine readable instructions may be one or more executable programs or portion(s) of an executable program for execution by a computer processor such as the processor 912 shown in the example processor platform 900 discussed below in connection with FIG. 9. The program may be embodied in software stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium such as a CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a DVD, a Blu-ray disk, or a memory associated with the processor 912… [0129] FIG. 9 is a block diagram of an example processor platform 900 structured to execute the instructions of FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8 to implement the telemetry controller 130B of the first edge platform 140 of FIGS. 1 and/or 2. While the processor platform 900 of FIG. 9 is described in connection with the telemetry controller 130B of the first edge platform 140 of FIGS. 1 and/or 2, any suitable telemetry controller 130A-C may be implemented. For example, the processor platform 900 may be structured to execute the instructions of FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8 to implement the telemetry controller 130C of the second edge platform 150 of FIGS. 1 and/or 2. The processor platform 900 can be, for example, a server, a personal computer, a workstation, a self-learning machine (e.g., a neural network), a mobile device (e.g., a cell phone, a smart phone, a tablet such as an iPad′), a personal digital assistant (PDA), an Internet appliance, a DVD player, a CD player, a digital video recorder, a Blu-ray player, a gaming console, a personal video recorder, a set top box, a headset or other wearable device, or any other type of computing device…. [0135] The interface circuit 920 of the illustrated example also includes a communication device such as a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a modem, a residential gateway, a wireless access point, and/or a network interface to facilitate exchange of data with external machines (e.g., computing devices of any kind) via a network 926. The communication can be via, for example, an Ethernet connection, a digital subscriber line (DSL) connection, a telephone line connection, a coaxial cable system, a satellite system, a line-of-site wireless system, a cellular telephone system, etc.”): transmit first information to a child node in a mobile communication network, the first information indicating a capability requirement for a valid child node participating in a distributed task(DOSHI teaches where a node regarded as a master node, transmits, “publishes”, first information indicating a capability requirement, “telemetry wish list” to a, another node, regarded as a child node, for participating in a distributed task. The child node is regarded as valid, based on whether the child node, commits to performing a task on the telemetry wish list “[0032]…a telemetry wish list, corresponds to a request by consumers (e.g., a user of telemetry data, another edge platform, and/or any suitable computing device) to initiate a task such as, for example, obtaining resource utilizations to migrate a service, migrate a tenant, offload a service, etc… To determine whether other edge platforms in the edge environment are capable of executing such a task, data relating to the tasks in the wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is brokered and obtained…[0106]…Alternatively, in the event the source manager 204 determines a wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is obtained (e.g., the control of block 306 returns a result of YES), the publisher 216 publishes the wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) to various components. (Block 308)… [0113] At block 406, the commitment determiner 226 determines whether it is viable for a component (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224 because, for example, the component of interest does not have the processing capabilities or is available) to accept a commitment. ”); and receive second information transmitted by the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node participating in the distributed task, wherein the second information indicates that capability information of the child node satisfies capability information required for the valid child node and the child node requests to become the valid child node(DOSHI teaches where the master node receives, second information, acceptance of commitment , transmitted by the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node in participating in the distributed task, “[0113]… Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that it is viable for a component (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224) to accept a commitment (e.g., the control of block 406 returns a result of YES), the commitment determiner 226 further determines whether such a viable commitment has already been accepted by another component. (Block 408). For example, the commitment determiner 226 may determine that the extractor 220 is capable of accepting a commitment relating to extracting data. In such an example, the commitment determiner 226 identifies whether any other component (e.g., another extractor located in a separate telemetry controller) has already accepted such a commitment… [0114] In the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has already accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of YES), control proceeds to block 416. Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has not accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of NO), the commitment determiner 226 transmits an indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204 and to the publisher 216. (Block 410).” DOSHI teaches where the second information, indication of accepted commitment, indicates that the capability of the child nodes satisfies information required for the child node to qualify as a valid child node, as the indication is sent on the basis of a determination that child node qualifies the commitment as viable, and that the child node requests via the indication of accepted comment, to become a valid child node [Par. 113 – Par. 114]).
In regards to claim 11, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) teaches a child node, comprising: a processor; a transceiver connected with the processor; and a memory configured to store computer programs, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer programs stored in the memory to cause the transceiver to (“[0098] Flowchart representative of example hardware logic, machine readable instructions, hardware implemented state machines, and/or any combination thereof for implementing the telemetry controller 130A-C of FIGS. 1 and/or 2 are shown in FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8. The machine readable instructions may be one or more executable programs or portion(s) of an executable program for execution by a computer processor such as the processor 912 shown in the example processor platform 900 discussed below in connection with FIG. 9. The program may be embodied in software stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium such as a CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a DVD, a Blu-ray disk, or a memory associated with the processor 912… [0129] FIG. 9 is a block diagram of an example processor platform 900 structured to execute the instructions of FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8 to implement the telemetry controller 130B of the first edge platform 140 of FIGS. 1 and/or 2. While the processor platform 900 of FIG. 9 is described in connection with the telemetry controller 130B of the first edge platform 140 of FIGS. 1 and/or 2, any suitable telemetry controller 130A-C may be implemented. For example, the processor platform 900 may be structured to execute the instructions of FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8 to implement the telemetry controller 130C of the second edge platform 150 of FIGS. 1 and/or 2. The processor platform 900 can be, for example, a server, a personal computer, a workstation, a self-learning machine (e.g., a neural network), a mobile device (e.g., a cell phone, a smart phone, a tablet such as an iPad′), a personal digital assistant (PDA), an Internet appliance, a DVD player, a CD player, a digital video recorder, a Blu-ray player, a gaming console, a personal video recorder, a set top box, a headset or other wearable device, or any other type of computing device…. [0135] The interface circuit 920 of the illustrated example also includes a communication device such as a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a modem, a residential gateway, a wireless access point, and/or a network interface to facilitate exchange of data with external machines (e.g., computing devices of any kind) via a network 926. The communication can be via, for example, an Ethernet connection, a digital subscriber line (DSL) connection, a telephone line connection, a coaxial cable system, a satellite system, a line-of-site wireless system, a cellular telephone system, etc.”): receive first information transmitted by a master node, the first information indicating a capability requirement for a valid child node participating in a distributed task (DOSHI teaches where a node regarded as a master node, transmits, “publishes”, first information indicating a capability requirement, “telemetry wish list” to a, another node, regarded as a child node, for participating in a distributed task. The child node is regarded as valid, based on whether the child node, commits to performing a task on the telemetry wish list “[0032]…a telemetry wish list, corresponds to a request by consumers (e.g., a user of telemetry data, another edge platform, and/or any suitable computing device) to initiate a task such as, for example, obtaining resource utilizations to migrate a service, migrate a tenant, offload a service, etc… To determine whether other edge platforms in the edge environment are capable of executing such a task, data relating to the tasks in the wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is brokered and obtained…[0106]…Alternatively, in the event the source manager 204 determines a wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) is obtained (e.g., the control of block 306 returns a result of YES), the publisher 216 publishes the wish list (e.g., telemetry wish list) to various components. (Block 308)… [0113] At block 406, the commitment determiner 226 determines whether it is viable for a component (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224 because, for example, the component of interest does not have the processing capabilities or is available) to accept a commitment. ”); and
transmit second information to the master node based on the first information and capability information of the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node participating in the distributed task, wherein the second information indicates that the capability information of the child node satisfies capability information required for the valid child node and the child node requests to become the valid child node (DOSHI teaches where the master node receives, second information, acceptance of commitment , transmitted by the child node, the second information being used to request to become the valid child node in participating in the distributed task, “[0113]… Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that it is viable for a component (e.g., any of the publisher 216, the extractor 220, the collector 222, and/or the indexer 224) to accept a commitment (e.g., the control of block 406 returns a result of YES), the commitment determiner 226 further determines whether such a viable commitment has already been accepted by another component. (Block 408). For example, the commitment determiner 226 may determine that the extractor 220 is capable of accepting a commitment relating to extracting data. In such an example, the commitment determiner 226 identifies whether any other component (e.g., another extractor located in a separate telemetry controller) has already accepted such a commitment… [0114] In the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has already accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of YES), control proceeds to block 416. Alternatively, in the event the commitment determiner 226 determines that another component has not accepted such a commitment (e.g., the control of block 408 returns a result of NO), the commitment determiner 226 transmits an indication of the accepted commitment to the source manager 204 and to the publisher 216. (Block 410).” DOSHI teaches where the second information, indication of accepted commitment, indicates that the capability of the child nodes satisfies information required for the child node to qualify as a valid child node, as the indication is sent on the basis of a determination that child node qualifies the commitment as viable, and that the child node requests via the indication of accepted comment, to become a valid child node [Par. 113 – Par. 114]).
).
In regards to claim 2, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises: capability information required for the valid child node participating in the distributed task (DOSHI teaches where the telemetry wish list comprises capability information required for a child node, to qualify as valid for participating in the distributed task, as the child node determines whether or not is capable, viable, of/for performing the telemetry task, See [Par. 113 – Par. 114]).
In regards to claim 12, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) teaches the child node of claim 11, wherein the first information comprises: capability information required for the valid child node participating in the distributed task (DOSHI teaches where the telemetry wish list comprises capability information required for a child node, to qualify as valid for participating in the distributed task, as the child node determines whether or not is capable, viable, of/for performing the telemetry task, See [Par. 113 – Par. 114]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) in view of KIM (US 20160373915 A1).
In regards to claim 4, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the master node is a network device, the child node is a terminal device, and the first information is carried in at least one of: a broadcast message, a system information block (SIB), a radio resource control (RRC) message, an RRC reconfiguration signaling, downlink control information (DCI), a medium access control-control element (MAC CE), a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order, and data information. However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a network device, eNB, and a second node is a terminal device, UE, and information is transmitted from the eNB to UE, using downlink control information (DCI) (“[0101] An eNB determines the format of a PDCCH based on DCI to be transmitted to UE and attaches a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) to control information.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a network device, and a terminal device to carry the first information via downlink control information (DCI), to thus arrive at claim 4, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 14, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the child node of claim 11, wherein the master node is a network device, the child node is a terminal device, and the first information is carried in at least one of: a broadcast message, a system information block (SIB), a radio resource control (RRC) message, an RRC reconfiguration signaling, downlink control information (DCI), a medium access control-control element (MAC CE), a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order, and data information. However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a network device, eNB, and a second node is a terminal device, UE, and information is transmitted from the eNB to UE, using downlink control information (DCI) (“[0101] An eNB determines the format of a PDCCH based on DCI to be transmitted to UE and attaches a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) to control information.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a network device, and a terminal device to carry the first information via downlink control information (DCI), to thus arrive at claim 14, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 5, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the master node and the child node are both terminal devices, and transmitting, by the master node, the first information to the child node in the mobile communication network comprises: transmitting, by the master node, the first information to the child node in the mobile communication network through a sidelink (SL). However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a terminal device, UE, and a second node is a terminal device, UE, and information is transmitted between the UEs, using a sidelink communication channel (“[0370] D2D communication may be performed in the scenarios of FIG. 21, but may be commonly performed within network coverage (in-coverage) and out of network coverage (out-of-coverage). A link used for D2D communication (i.e., direct communication between UEs) may be called a D2D link, a directlink, or a sidelink, but is hereinafter generally called a sidelink, for convenience of description.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a first terminal device, UE and a second terminal device, UE, to carry the first information via a sidelink, to thus arrive at claim 5, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 15, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the child node of claim 11, wherein the master node and the child node are both terminal devices, and the transceiver is specifically configured to: receive the first information transmitted by the master node through a sidelink (SL). However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a terminal device, UE, and a second node is a terminal device, UE, and information is transmitted between the UEs, using a sidelink communication channel (“[0370] D2D communication may be performed in the scenarios of FIG. 21, but may be commonly performed within network coverage (in-coverage) and out of network coverage (out-of-coverage). A link used for D2D communication (i.e., direct communication between UEs) may be called a D2D link, a directlink, or a sidelink, but is hereinafter generally called a sidelink, for convenience of description.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a first terminal device, UE and a second terminal device, UE, to carry the first information via a sidelink, to thus arrive at claim 15, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 6, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the master node is a first network device, the child node is a second network device, and transmitting, by the master node, the first information to the child node in the mobile communication network comprises: transmitting, by the master node, the first information to the child node in the mobile communication network via a Xn interface, wherein the Xn interface is a communication interface between the first network device and the second network device. However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a first network device, eNB and a second node is a second network device, eNB, and information is transmitted between the eNBs, using a Xn interface, X2, communication channel (“[0060] An E-UTRAN system may be a system advanced from an existing UTRAN system and may be a 3GPP LTE/LTE-A system, for example. The E-UTRAN includes eNBs for providing control plane and user plane protocols for UEs. eNBs are connected through an X2 interface. An X2 user plane (X2-U) interface is defined between eNBs. The X2-U interface provides the non-guaranteed delivery of a user plane Packet Data Unit (PDU). An X2 Control Plane (X2-CP) interface is defined between two adjacent eNBs. The X2-CP interface performs functions, such as the transfer of context between eNBs, control of a user plane tunnel between a source eNB and a target eNB, the transfer of a handover-related message, and the management of an uplink load.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a first network device, eNB, and a second network device device, eNB, to carry the first information via a Xn interface, X2, to thus arrive at claim 6, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 16, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the child node of claim 11, wherein the master node is a first network device, the child node is a second network device, and the transceiver is specifically configured to: receive the first information transmitted by the master node via a Xn interface, wherein the Xn interface is a communication interface between the first network device and the second network device. However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a first network device, eNB and a second node is a second network device, eNB, and information is transmitted between the eNBs, using a Xn interface, X2, communication channel (“[0060] An E-UTRAN system may be a system advanced from an existing UTRAN system and may be a 3GPP LTE/LTE-A system, for example. The E-UTRAN includes eNBs for providing control plane and user plane protocols for UEs. eNBs are connected through an X2 interface. An X2 user plane (X2-U) interface is defined between eNBs. The X2-U interface provides the non-guaranteed delivery of a user plane Packet Data Unit (PDU). An X2 Control Plane (X2-CP) interface is defined between two adjacent eNBs. The X2-CP interface performs functions, such as the transfer of context between eNBs, control of a user plane tunnel between a source eNB and a target eNB, the transfer of a handover-related message, and the management of an uplink load.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a first network device, eNB, and a second network device device, eNB, to carry the first information via a Xn interface, X2, to thus arrive at claim 16, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 8, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the second information is carried in at least one of: an RRC message, uplink control information (UCI), information carried in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and information carried in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a network device, eNB, and a second node is a terminal device, UE, and information is transmitted from the UE to the eNB, using a PUCCH (“[0184] In a situation in which UE has to simultaneously send a plurality of ACK/NACKs corresponding to a plurality of data units received from an eNB, an ACK/NACK multiplexing method based on the selection of a PUCCH resource may be taken into consideration in order to maintain the single frequency characteristic of an ACK/NACK signal and to reduce ACK/NACK transmission power.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a network device, and a terminal device to carry the second information via PUCCH, to thus arrive at claim 8, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
In regards to claim 18, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the child node of claim 11, wherein the second information is carried in at least one of: an RRC message, uplink control information (UCI), information carried in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and information carried in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However, DOSHI does generally suggest a mobile communication network for communication between the nodes (“[0016] Edge computing use cases in mobile network settings have been developed for integration with multi-access edge computing (MEC) approaches, also known as “mobile edge computing.””) and more specifically the use of cellular devices functioning as the nodes in the network (“[0015]…In some examples, edge computing can include multiple “edges,” such as, for example, an edge directed toward IoT devices, an edge directed towards a cloud network, an edge directed toward mobile and/or multi-access edges (e.g., cell phones, drones, autonomous vehicles), and/or an edge directed toward private clouds, information technology (IT), etc.”). Furthermore, in other prior art involving cellular communications, KIM (US 20160373915 A1) teaches a cellular communication network, E-UTRAN (“[0020] FIG. 1 shows an example of the structure of an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) to which an embodiment of the present invention may be applied. [0021] FIG. 2 shows the structure of a radio interface protocol between UE and the E-UTRAN.”). KIM teaches with respect to the E-UTRAN, where a first node is a network device, eNB, and a second node is a terminal device, UE, and information is transmitted from the UE to the eNB, using a PUCCH (“[0184] In a situation in which UE has to simultaneously send a plurality of ACK/NACKs corresponding to a plurality of data units received from an eNB, an ACK/NACK multiplexing method based on the selection of a PUCCH resource may be taken into consideration in order to maintain the single frequency characteristic of an ACK/NACK signal and to reduce ACK/NACK transmission power.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM (US 20160373915 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile communication network feature suggested by DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1), by adopting use of E-UTRAN and also the use of a network device, and a terminal device to carry the second information via PUCCH, to thus arrive at claim 18, in order to provide the benefit of reliable wireless communication networking standard for providing the mobile networking feature suggested by DOSHI.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 10, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) in view of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1)
In regards to claim 3, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 2, wherein the capability information required for the valid child node participating in the distributed task comprises at least one of: computing capability information satisfying a computing capability condition; storage capability information satisfying a storage capability condition; transmission capability information satisfying a transmission capability condition; and energy capability information satisfying an energy capability condition; wherein the computing capability information comprises at least one of: a floating-point computing capability per unit time; a number of graphics processing units (GPU); a cache size of the GPU; a number of neural network processing units (NPU); a cache size of the NPU; and a number of central processing units (CPU); wherein the storage capability information comprises at least one of: an available memory size; an available cache size; and an available storage size; wherein the transmission capability information comprises at least one of: a transmission rate; a transmission delay; a communication signal strength; channel quality state information; a transmission bit error rate (BER); a transmission block error rate (BLER); and spectrum efficiency information; and/or wherein the energy capability information comprises at least one of: remaining power; available power for the distributed task; and a predicted value of battery life.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving performing a distributed task. LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) teaches where a master node, DST client module, determines a child node, candidate DST execution units, in a distributed task based on information obtained concerning the plurality of child nodes, such as a capability level “…a distributed task computing capability level…”. LEGGETTE further teaches with respect to the capability level, where the capability level can indicate a storage capability of the candidate DST execution units (“[0395]…A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level…”). LEGGETTE further teaches transmitting, by the master node, information indicating that the master node agrees that the child node is to become a valid node participating in the distributed task, by sending, “…the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks…” to the candidate DST execution units (“[0395] FIG. 54 is a flow chart illustrating an example of selecting distributed computing resources, which includes similar steps to FIGS. 5 and 53B. The method begins with step 126 of FIG. 5 where a processing module (e.g., of a distributed storage and task (DST) client module) receives data and a corresponding task. The method continues at step 756 where the processing module identifies candidate DST execution units for executing partial tasks of the corresponding task. The identifying may include obtaining a distributed task computing capability level by one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message and selecting the candidate DST execution units associated with favorable distributed task computing capability levels (e.g., above a threshold). A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level. [0396] The method continues at step 758 where the processing module obtains distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units based on one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message. The method continues at step 760 where the processing module selects a number of DST execution units of the candidate DST execution units to favorably execute the partial tasks of the corresponding tasks. The selecting includes identifying a number of simultaneous compute resources to execute the task in a favorable timeframe based on the distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units…[0397]…The method continues with step 752 of FIG. 53B where the processing module determines processing parameters of the data based on the task partitioning and continues with steps 136, 134, and 138 of FIG. 5 where the processing module partitions the tasks based on the task partitioning to produce partial tasks, processes the data in accordance with the processing parameters to produce slice groupings, and sends the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks to the DST execution units.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed task feature of DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) by adopting a feature for determining child nodes for performing a distributed task based upon information (i.e. second information of DOSHI) indicating capability/validity/storage level (i.e. wherein the storage capability information comprises at least one of: an available memory size; an available cache size; and an available storage size…) of the child node(s) and transmitting information to the child node, confirming the selection of the child node as a valid node for performing the distributed task to thus arrive at claim 3, in order to provide a benefit of optimizing the performance of distributed task processing feature of DOSHI by optimizing based on desired capability of the child nodes.
In regards to claim 13, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the child node of claim 12, wherein the capability information required for the valid child node participating in the distributed task comprises at least one of: computing capability information satisfying a computing capability condition; storage capability information satisfying a storage capability condition; transmission capability information satisfying a transmission capability condition; and energy capability information satisfying an energy capability condition; wherein the computing capability information comprises at least one of: a floating-point computing capability per unit time; a number of graphics processing units (GPU); a cache size of the GPU; a number of neural network processing units (NPU); a cache size of the NPU; and a number of central processing units (CPU); wherein the storage capability information comprises at least one of: an available memory size; an available cache size; and an available storage size; wherein the transmission capability information comprises at least one of: a transmission rate; a transmission delay; a communication signal strength; channel quality state information; a transmission bit error rate (BER); a transmission block error rate (BLER); and spectrum efficiency information; and/or wherein the energy capability information comprises at least one of: remaining power; available power for the distributed task; and a predicted value of battery life. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving performing a distributed task. LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) teaches where a master node, DST client module, determines a child node, candidate DST execution units, in a distributed task based on information obtained concerning the plurality of child nodes, such as a capability level “…a distributed task computing capability level…”. LEGGETTE further teaches with respect to the capability level, where the capability level can indicate a storage capability of the candidate DST execution units (“[0395]…A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level…”). LEGGETTE further teaches transmitting, by the master node, information indicating that the master node agrees that the child node is to become a valid node participating in the distributed task, by sending, “…the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks…” to the candidate DST execution units (“[0395] FIG. 54 is a flow chart illustrating an example of selecting distributed computing resources, which includes similar steps to FIGS. 5 and 53B. The method begins with step 126 of FIG. 5 where a processing module (e.g., of a distributed storage and task (DST) client module) receives data and a corresponding task. The method continues at step 756 where the processing module identifies candidate DST execution units for executing partial tasks of the corresponding task. The identifying may include obtaining a distributed task computing capability level by one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message and selecting the candidate DST execution units associated with favorable distributed task computing capability levels (e.g., above a threshold). A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level. [0396] The method continues at step 758 where the processing module obtains distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units based on one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message. The method continues at step 760 where the processing module selects a number of DST execution units of the candidate DST execution units to favorably execute the partial tasks of the corresponding tasks. The selecting includes identifying a number of simultaneous compute resources to execute the task in a favorable timeframe based on the distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units…[0397]…The method continues with step 752 of FIG. 53B where the processing module determines processing parameters of the data based on the task partitioning and continues with steps 136, 134, and 138 of FIG. 5 where the processing module partitions the tasks based on the task partitioning to produce partial tasks, processes the data in accordance with the processing parameters to produce slice groupings, and sends the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks to the DST execution units.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed task feature of DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) by adopting a feature for determining child nodes for performing a distributed task based upon information (i.e. second information of DOSHI) indicating capability/validity/storage level (i.e. wherein the storage capability information comprises at least one of: an available memory size; an available cache size; and an available storage size…) of the child node(s) and transmitting information to the child node, confirming the selection of the child node as a valid node for performing the distributed task to thus arrive at claim 13, in order to provide a benefit of optimizing the performance of distributed task processing feature of DOSHI by optimizing based on desired capability of the child nodes.
In regards to claim 9, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the master node, a child node participating in the distributed task based on the second information of a plurality of child nodes; and transmitting, by the master node, third information to the child node, wherein the third information indicates that the master node agrees for the child node to become the valid child node participating in the distributed task. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving performing a distributed task. LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) teaches where a master node, DST client module, determines a child node, candidate DST execution units, in a distributed task based on information obtained concerning the plurality of child nodes, “…a distributed task computing capability level..” and transmitting, by the master node, information indicating that the master node agrees that the child node is to become a valid node participating in the distributed task, by sending, “…the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks…” to the candidate DST execution units (“[0395] FIG. 54 is a flow chart illustrating an example of selecting distributed computing resources, which includes similar steps to FIGS. 5 and 53B. The method begins with step 126 of FIG. 5 where a processing module (e.g., of a distributed storage and task (DST) client module) receives data and a corresponding task. The method continues at step 756 where the processing module identifies candidate DST execution units for executing partial tasks of the corresponding task. The identifying may include obtaining a distributed task computing capability level by one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message and selecting the candidate DST execution units associated with favorable distributed task computing capability levels (e.g., above a threshold). A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level. [0396] The method continues at step 758 where the processing module obtains distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units based on one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message. The method continues at step 760 where the processing module selects a number of DST execution units of the candidate DST execution units to favorably execute the partial tasks of the corresponding tasks. The selecting includes identifying a number of simultaneous compute resources to execute the task in a favorable timeframe based on the distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units…[0397]…The method continues with step 752 of FIG. 53B where the processing module determines processing parameters of the data based on the task partitioning and continues with steps 136, 134, and 138 of FIG. 5 where the processing module partitions the tasks based on the task partitioning to produce partial tasks, processes the data in accordance with the processing parameters to produce slice groupings, and sends the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks to the DST execution units.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed task feature of DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) by adopting a feature for determining child nodes for performing a distributed task based upon information indicating capability/validity of the child node(s) (i.e. second information of DOSHI) and transmitting information to the child node, confirming the selection of the child node as a valid node for performing the distributed task to thus arrive at claim 9, in order to provide a benefit of optimizing the performance of distributed task processing feature of DOSHI by optimizing based on desired capability of the child nodes.
In regards to claim 19, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the child node of claim 11, wherein the transceiver is further configured to: receive third information transmitted by the master node, wherein the third information indicates that the master node agrees for the child node to become the valid child node participating in the distributed task. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving performing a distributed task. LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) teaches where a master node, DST client module, determines a child node, candidate DST execution units, in a distributed task based on information obtained concerning a plurality of child nodes, “…a distributed task computing capability level..” and transmitting, by the master node, information indicating that the master node agrees that the child node is to become a valid node participating in the distributed task, by sending, “…the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks…” to the candidate DST execution units (“[0395] FIG. 54 is a flow chart illustrating an example of selecting distributed computing resources, which includes similar steps to FIGS. 5 and 53B. The method begins with step 126 of FIG. 5 where a processing module (e.g., of a distributed storage and task (DST) client module) receives data and a corresponding task. The method continues at step 756 where the processing module identifies candidate DST execution units for executing partial tasks of the corresponding task. The identifying may include obtaining a distributed task computing capability level by one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message and selecting the candidate DST execution units associated with favorable distributed task computing capability levels (e.g., above a threshold). A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level. [0396] The method continues at step 758 where the processing module obtains distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units based on one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message. The method continues at step 760 where the processing module selects a number of DST execution units of the candidate DST execution units to favorably execute the partial tasks of the corresponding tasks. The selecting includes identifying a number of simultaneous compute resources to execute the task in a favorable timeframe based on the distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units…[0397]…The method continues with step 752 of FIG. 53B where the processing module determines processing parameters of the data based on the task partitioning and continues with steps 136, 134, and 138 of FIG. 5 where the processing module partitions the tasks based on the task partitioning to produce partial tasks, processes the data in accordance with the processing parameters to produce slice groupings, and sends the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks to the DST execution units.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed task feature of DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) by adopting a feature for determining child nodes for performing a distributed task based upon information indicating capability/validity of the child node(s) (i.e. second information of DOSHI) and transmitting, information to the child node, confirming the selection of the child node as a valid node for performing the distributed task to thus arrive at claim 19, in order to provide a benefit of optimizing the performance of distributed task processing feature of DOSHI by optimizing based on a desired capability of the child nodes.
In regards to claim 10, DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) is silent on the method of claim 9, wherein determining the child node participating in the distributed task based on the second information of the plurality of child nodes comprises: determining a child node transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task; or determining N child nodes with strongest capabilities among child nodes transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task, wherein the capability comprises at least one of: a computing capability, a storage capability, a transmission capability, and an energy capability; or determining, M child nodes with highest feedback speeds among the child nodes transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task; or determining K child nodes randomly selected among the child nodes transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task, wherein N, M, and K are positive integers. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving performing a distributed task. LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) teaches where a master node, DST client module, determines a child node, candidate DST execution units, in a distributed task based on information obtained concerning a plurality of child nodes with the strongest capabilities “…a distributed task computing capability level..” and transmitting, by the master node, information indicating that the master node agrees that the child node is to become a valid node participating in the distributed task, by sending, “…the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks…” to the candidate DST execution units (“[0395] FIG. 54 is a flow chart illustrating an example of selecting distributed computing resources, which includes similar steps to FIGS. 5 and 53B. The method begins with step 126 of FIG. 5 where a processing module (e.g., of a distributed storage and task (DST) client module) receives data and a corresponding task. The method continues at step 756 where the processing module identifies candidate DST execution units for executing partial tasks of the corresponding task. The identifying may include obtaining a distributed task computing capability level by one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message and selecting the candidate DST execution units associated with favorable distributed task computing capability levels (e.g., above a threshold). A distributed task computing capability level includes one or more of a processing capability level, a memory capacity level, a network access level, a bandwidth capability level, an availability level, and a reliability level. [0396] The method continues at step 758 where the processing module obtains distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units based on one or more of a query, a lookup, and receiving a message. The method continues at step 760 where the processing module selects a number of DST execution units of the candidate DST execution units to favorably execute the partial tasks of the corresponding tasks. The selecting includes identifying a number of simultaneous compute resources to execute the task in a favorable timeframe based on the distributed computing capabilities of the candidate DST execution units…[0397]…The method continues with step 752 of FIG. 53B where the processing module determines processing parameters of the data based on the task partitioning and continues with steps 136, 134, and 138 of FIG. 5 where the processing module partitions the tasks based on the task partitioning to produce partial tasks, processes the data in accordance with the processing parameters to produce slice groupings, and sends the slice groupings and corresponding partial tasks to the DST execution units.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of LEGGETTE (US 20130151928 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributed task feature of DOSHI (US 20200136921 A1) by adopting a feature for determining child nodes for performing a distributed task based upon information indicating capability/validity of the child node(s) (i.e. second information of DOSHI) and transmitting, information to the child node, confirming the selection of the child node as a valid node for performing the distributed task to thus arrive at claim 10 (“….wherein determining the child node participating in the distributed task based on the second information of the plurality of child nodes comprises…determining a child node transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task; or determining N child nodes with strongest capabilities among child nodes transmitting the second information as the child node participating in the distributed task…), in order to provide a benefit of optimizing the performance of distributed task processing feature of DOSHI by optimizing based on a desired capability of the child nodes.
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.
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 TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights