DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/24 and 9/12/23 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khalid (Khalid), US publication no. 2019/02080071.
As per claim 1, Khalid teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving thermal data associated with an extended reality (XR) device [para 18, 47];
determining that a condition is met for offloading a thermal load of the XR device;
identifying one or more edge processing devices within an environment of the XR device [para 48];
selecting at least one edge processing device of the one or more edge processing devices with sufficient computing resources for balancing the thermal load of the XR device; and instructing the XR device to offload the thermal load to the selected at least one edge processing device [figure 1; para 48].
Khalid teaches:
[0018] Client device 106 may include any computing device configured to perform client-side operations described herein. Client device 106 may include, without
limitation, a mobile phone device such as a smartphone device, a tablet computer, a personal desktop or laptop computer, a gaming device, a virtual reality device such as
a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality device such as an augmented reality headset, a media player device configured to receive, process, and present media content, and/or any other computing device or combination of computing devices configured to access service 110 over network 108.
[0048] As an example, during operation of client 112, client 112 may call for a task to be executed. Client 112 may determine that current latencies between client device 106 and edge computing device 104 are below a defined threshold and, in response, may offload performance of the task by requesting that the task be performed by speed layer 116 (e.g., by sending a task performance request to edge computing device 104). In certain examples, the defined threshold may correspond to a latency to send the task to a resource (e.g., a GPU) at client device 106, and client 112 may determine that when the latency to send the task to speed layer 116 is not greater than the latency to send the task to a resource at client device 106, client 112 will request that the task be performed by speed layer 116 instead of at client device 106. As another example, client 112 may determine to send a task to speed layer 116 based on a status of
resources of client device 106, such as when usage of resources of client device 106 has reached a defined threshold ( e.g., when a temperature of a component of client device 106 has reached a defined threshold temperature). As another example, client 112 may determine to process a task at the client device 106 because of a current network condition ( e.g., current latency is greater than a defined threshold, a connection was temporarily interrupted, etc.). In this or a similar manner, client 112 may dynamically select an optimal path for a component or a task to be performed
based on current latencies and/or other factors. Speed layer 116 may be similarly configured to determine, at runtime, whether a component or a task will be processed by speed layer 116 or offloaded (e.g., to batch layer 114) based on one or more predefined factors.
As per claim 2, Khalid teaches of determining that the condition is met for offloading the thermal load of the XR device includes: comparing a temperature sensor value associated with the XR device within the thermal data to a temperature
threshold; and determining that the condition is met in response to the temperature sensor value satisfying the temperature threshold [para 48].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
8. Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (Khalid), US publication no. 2019/0208007 in view of Hanumanthaiah et al. (Hanumanthaiah), WO 2024/039392 A1.
As per claim 3, Khalid teaches of determining that the condition is met for offloading the thermal load of the XR device [para 48].
Khalid fails to teach of comparing a biometric sensor value associated with a user of the XR device within the set of thermal data to a biometric data threshold; and determining that the condition is met in response to the biometric sensor value satisfying the biometric data threshold.
Hanumanthaiah teaches that a biometric sensor value associated with a user of the XR device within the set of thermal data to a biometric data threshold; and determining that the condition is met in response to the biometric sensor value satisfying the biometric data threshold [para 32, 44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Khalid and Hanumanthaiah because they both disclose XR device, the specify teachings of Hanumanthaiah stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Khalid system to measure the biometric data to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 5, Hanumanthaiah teaches of identifying one or more edge processing devices within an environment of the XR device: determining available memory resources of each of the one or more edge processing devices; and
determining available processing resources of each of the one or more edge processing devices [para 88].
As per claim 6, Khalid teaches of selecting the at least one edge processing device of the one or more of edge processing devices with sufficient computing resources for balancing the thermal load of the XR device [para 48]; and
Hanumanthaiah teaches of determining that the at least one edge processing device has a sufficient amount of available memory resources, a sufficient
amount of available processing resources, and a sufficient amount of available network resources for balancing the thermal load of the XR device [para 88].
9. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (Khalid), US publication no. 2019/0208007 in view of Gudivada et al. (Gudivada), US publication no. 2023/0400975.
As per claim 4, Khalid teaches of determining that the condition is met for offloading the thermal load of the XR device determining that the condition is met [para 48].
As per claim 4, Khalid fails to teach of detecting at least one keyword associated with the condition uttered by a user of the XR device during XR usage.
Gudivada teaches detecting at least one keyword [voice input] associated with the condition uttered by a user of the XR device during XR usage [para 43].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Khalid and Gudivada because they both disclose XR device, the specify teachings of Gudivada stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Khalid system to allow voice input for keyword phrase to obtain predictable results.
As to claims 7-9 and 11-13, basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claims 1-6. Accordingly, claims 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-6.
As to claims 14-16 and 18-20, directed to a computer readable storage medium storing the program instructions to perform the method of steps executed by the system as set forth in claim 1-6. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
10. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid (Khalid), US publication no. 2019/0208007 in view of Hanumanthaiah et al. (Hanumanthaiah), WO 2024/039392 A1 and Mullins (Mullins), US publication no. 2018/0005442.
As per claim 10, Khalid fails to teach the biometric sensor value is a heart rate sensor value.
Mullins teaches the biometric sensor value is a heart rate sensor value [para 22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention to combine the teachings of Khalid and Hanumanthaiah and Mullins because they disclose XR device, the specify teachings of Mullins stated above would have further enhanced the performance and functionality of Khalid system to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 17, Mullins discloses the biometric sensor value is a sweat analyte quantity value [para 22].
11. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mittal et al., US publication no. 2016/0124476, discloses a method of operating of a user equipment (UE), the UE having a processor including a plurality of cores, the plurality of cores including a first core and remaining cores, comprising: determining a temperature of the first core of the plurality of cores, the first core processing a load;
determining that the temperature of the first core is greater than a first threshold;
determining that the temperature of the first core is not greater than a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold; and transferring at least a portion of the load of the first core to a second core of the remaining cores in response to determining that the temperature of the first core is greater than the first threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 am-3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-9. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Khalid is cited by applicant.