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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 11/12/2025.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 3 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument(s) filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Armour (US 20130232185 A1) in view of Giust (US 20190104030 A1).
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation “an edge manager module with 1. means for onboarding application configurations at edge computing nodes; 2. means for managing application lifecycles at edge computing nodes; 3. means for triggering the migration of edge applications and their context between edge computing nodes; an onboarding module with 1. means for receiving and storing application onboarding configurations sent by the edge manager modules of user equipment devices; A lifecycle manager module with: 1. means for the instantiation of edge applications, according to the onboarding configurations sent by the edge manager modules of user equipment devices;” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Edge manager module, onboarding module and lifecycle manager module” are nonce term that is modified by function and not limited by sufficient structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim invokes means plus. The specification fails to identify algorithms for performing each of the functions named.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour (US 20130232185 A1) in view of Giust (US 20190104030 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a method for decentralized management of edge computing nodes that are directly controlled by at least one user equipment device, the method comprising:
Armour teaches a. At each user equipment: (Armour, [0023], FIG.1; one or more of the application tiers may be managed using an application management service 111. The application management service may be run on a single computer system or on a plurality of computer systems.).
i. An edge manager module with (Armour, [0023], FIG.1; one or more of the application tiers may be managed using an application management service 111. The application management service may be run on a single computer system or on a plurality of computer systems.).
1. means for onboarding application configurations at edge computing nodes; (Armour, [0004] The computer system provides a structural diagram representing at various nodes multiple different configuration settings for a distributed software application deployed across one or more computer systems.)
2. means for managing application lifecycles at edge computing nodes; (Armour, [0033] The administrative user can manage the application over the lifecycle of the application at nodes.)
b. At each edge computing node: (Armour, FIG.1 shows nodes 119. [0004] The computer system provides a structural diagram representing at various nodes multiple different configuration settings for a distributed software application deployed across one or more computer systems.)
i. An onboarding module with (Armour, [0028], FIG.2; method 200 includes an act of receiving a user input specifying a distributed software application that is to be managed across one or more computer systems (act 210). For example, application management service 111 may receive user input 106 from user 105.
1. means for receiving and storing application onboarding configurations sent by the edge manager modules of user equipment devices; (Armour, [0013] The computer system provides a structural diagram representing at various nodes multiple different configuration settings for a distributed software application deployed across one or more computer systems. The computer system then receives an input at one of the structural diagram's nodes indicating a task that is to be performed on the distributed software application and performs the indicated task on the distributed software application. [0015] computer systems comprise storage for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures. [examiner notes: storing this data in the computer's memory is necessary for the computer to actually use the data (configuration data).])
ii. A lifecycle manager module with: (Armour, one or more of the application tiers may be managed using an application management service 111. The application management service may be run on a single computer system or on a plurality of computer systems.)
1. means for the instantiation of edge applications, according to the onboarding configurations sent by the edge manager modules of user equipment devices; (Armour, [0040], FIG.4; Thus, when a user selects the configuration settings button 451 on an instance (e.g. on instance A1 (454A1) or A2 (454A2) on tier A (453A), the stop command is not available. The tasks may include creating, upgrading, deleting or otherwise changing an instance, tier or service. Many other settings and tasks are possible, and those shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B are merely examples.)
Armour does not teach 3. means for terminating edge applications as commanded by the edge manager modules of user equipment devices;
Giust however in the same field of computer networking teaches 3. means for triggering the migration of edge applications and their context between edge computing nodes; (Giust, [0025], embodiments of the present invention allow MEC tenants to not only hand their application to the MEC administrator, but also to administer and manage how such applications are deployed, configured and executed. [0049], FIG.2 and FIG.4; at 404, the MEC broker 214 identifies MEC tenants that have provided applications for deployment on the hosts of the MEC system and determines the privileges assigned to the identified MEC tenants. The privileges assigned to the MEC tenants can include, e.g., LCM privileges. LCM privileges assigned to tenants can, for example, provide MEC tenants with the ability to execute operations such as bootstrapping, termination, scaling, and migration. [0059], migrate applications and services are deployed on the MEC hosts. [examiner notes: applications and services interpret to be their context.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Armour by incorporating the teachings of Giust. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to tailor the system according to its own needs (Giust, [0006]).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the method of claim 1,
Shah does not teach where at each edge computing node there is a relocation module for edge application relocation operations between edge computing nodes as requested by the edge manager module.
Armour-Giust teach where at each edge computing node there is a relocation module for edge application relocation operations between edge computing nodes as requested by the edge manager module. (Giust, [0025], embodiments of the present invention allow MEC tenants to not only hand their application to the MEC administrator, but also to administer and manage how such applications are deployed, configured and executed. [0049], FIG.2 and FIG.4; at 404, the MEC broker 214 identifies MEC tenants that have provided applications for deployment on the hosts of the MEC system and determines the privileges assigned to the identified MEC tenants. The privileges assigned to the MEC tenants can include, e.g., LCM privileges. LCM privileges assigned to tenants can, for example, provide MEC tenants with the ability to execute operations such as bootstrapping, termination, scaling, and migration. [0059], migrate applications and services are deployed on the MEC hosts.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
2. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Armour in view of Giust further in view of Horvatin (US 20160357735 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 3, the method of claim 2,
Armour-Giust teach where the relocation of an edge application between two edge computing nodes is made through the user equipment device, (Giust, [0049], FIG.2 and FIG.4; at 404, the MEC broker 214 identifies MEC tenants that have provided applications for deployment on the hosts of the MEC system and determines the privileges assigned to the identified MEC tenants. The privileges assigned to the MEC tenants can include, e.g., LCM privileges. LCM privileges assigned to tenants can, for example, provide MEC tenants with the ability to execute operations such as bootstrapping, termination, scaling, and migration. [0059], migrate applications and services are deployed on the MEC hosts.)
the user equipment device further including a context storage module and means for its edge manager module to request the context data of edge applications running in any edge computing node to the relocation modules of said edge computing node; (Giust, [0049], FIG.2 and FIG.4; at 404, the MEC broker 214 identifies MEC tenants that have provided applications for deployment on the hosts of the MEC system and determines the privileges assigned to the identified MEC tenants. The privileges assigned to the MEC tenants can include, e.g., LCM privileges. LCM privileges assigned to tenants can, for example, provide MEC tenants with the ability to execute operations such as bootstrapping, termination, scaling, and migration. [0059], migrate applications and services are deployed on the MEC hosts. [0032], tenants 216 login the MEC broker 214 via the interfaces to perform the above operations. [examiner notes: the interfaces interpret to be the edge manager modules and the context storage module. the MEC broker 214 interprets to be the relocation modules. Shah teaches the user equipment at [0024].).
onboarding new edge application configurations in other edge computing nodes, instantiate the new edge applications, and add said context data to the new edge applications, (Armour, [0004] The computer system provides a structural diagram representing at various nodes multiple different configuration settings for a distributed software application deployed across one or more computer systems. [0040], FIG.4; Thus, when a user selects the configuration settings button 451 on an instance (e.g. on instance A1 (454A1) or A2 (454A2) on tier A (453A), the stop command is not available. The tasks may include creating, upgrading, deleting or otherwise changing an instance, tier or service. Many other settings and tasks are possible, and those shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B are merely examples.)
Armour-Giust do not teach temporarily storing these context data in the context storage module; whereby said method allows edge applications to be relocated without requiring integrating and directly interconnecting the edge nodes of the same or different owners.
Horvatin however in the same field of computer networking teaches temporarily storing these context data in the context storage module; (Horvatin, [0015], FIG.1 shows migrate data from source system 110 to target system 120. [0035], the Migration Manager 130 can first temporarily store the extracted data in memory associated with the Migration Manager. The Migration Manager can then perform any necessary transformations (derived above in step 220) related to the formatting of the extracted data to ensure that the data can be compatible when written into the target system. After the transformation has been performed on the data, the data is written into the target system. The extracted data that was temporarily stored in the Migration Manager can then be deleted to make room for additional data migrations. [examiner notes: the migration manager interprets to be the context storage module.])
whereby said method allows edge applications to be relocated without requiring integrating and directly interconnecting the edge nodes of the same or different owners. (Horvatin, [0015], FIG.1 shows migrate data from the source system 110 to the target system 120. The source system 110 and the target system 120 not directly interconnecting. [0035], the Migration Manager 130 can first temporarily store the extracted data in memory associated with the Migration Manager. The Migration Manager can then perform any necessary transformations (derived above in step 220) related to the formatting of the extracted data to ensure that the data can be compatible when written into the target system. After the transformation has been performed on the data, the data is written into the target system. The extracted data that was temporarily stored in the Migration Manager can then be deleted to make room for additional data migrations.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Armour by incorporating the teachings of Horvatin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determining who the owner is of the PST may be necessary to ensure that the correct PST data is provided to the correct owner on the new device through the use of data migration (Horvatin, [0008]).
3. Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour in view of Giust in view of Venkata in view of Horvatin further in view of Liu (US 20210058338 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, the method of claim 3,
Armour-Giust-Venkata-Horvatin do not teach where each edge computing node includes an edge application repository module to locally store edge application images.
Liu however in the same field of computer networking teaches where each edge computing node includes an edge application repository module to locally store edge application images. (Liu, [0107], the central node may store a plurality of application images, i.e., images containing the applications, uploaded by the client. The edge node may download the image corresponding to the application identifier from the central node according to the application identifier in the application deployment information, to prepare for subsequent application deployment. In one embodiment, the image download function may be achieved based on the P2P technology.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Armour by incorporating the teachings of Liu. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to improving resource utilization and saving costs (Liu, [0090]).
Regarding claim(s) 5, the method of claim 3,
Armour-Giust -Venkata-Horvatin teach where each terminal includes a terminal application repository module to locally store edge application images. (Liu, [0107], the central node may store a plurality of application images, i.e., images containing the applications, uploaded by the client. The edge node may download the image corresponding to the application identifier from the central node according to the application identifier in the application deployment information, to prepare for subsequent application deployment. In one embodiment, the image download function may be achieved based on the P2P technology. [0108], the application images uploaded by the client may be stored in another image library. The storage location of the application images is not limited in the disclosed embodiments of the present invention.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 4 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the method of claim 3,
Armour-Giust -Venkata-Horvatin teach where each edge computing node includes an edge application repository module to locally store edge application images and each terminal includes a terminal application repository module to locally store edge application images. (Liu, [0107], the central node may store a plurality of application images, i.e., images containing the applications, uploaded by the client. The edge node may download the image corresponding to the application identifier from the central node according to the application identifier in the application deployment information, to prepare for subsequent application deployment. In one embodiment, the image download function may be achieved based on the P2P technology.)
The same motivation to combine as the dependent claim 4 applies here.
4. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour in view of Giust in view of Venkata further in view of Shah (US 20180049179 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, the system of claim 3,
Armour-Giust-Venkata do not teach where user equipment devices set direct concurrent radio connections with a plurality of edge computing nodes to exchange edge applications configurations, edge application contexts, application images or any other information.
Shah however in the same field of computer networking teaches where user equipment devices set direct concurrent radio connections with a plurality of edge computing nodes to exchange edge applications configurations, edge application contexts, application images or any other information. (Shah, [0021], Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) server may for example refer to a computing device that has the ability to run Information Technology (IT) services at the edge of mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) based on the concepts of cloud computing. The term “edge” in this context may for example mean the radio base station itself (eNodeB, RNC, etc.), and servers within the RAN (e.g. at “aggregation points”). The presence of MEC server at the edge of the RAN may allow exposure to real-time radio and network information (such as subscriber location, cell load, etc.) that can be leveraged by applications and services to offer context-related services to one or more edge users. [0039], the mobile RAN 110 may correspond to a communication medium through which the one or more IoT sensor nodes 102, the one or more IoT sensor devices 104, the MEC server 106, and the one or more MEC devices 122 may communicate with each other. Such a communication may be performed, in accordance with various wired and wireless communication protocols.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Armour by incorporating the teachings of Shah. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need of a communication technique for managing the IoT ecosystem into the existing MEC infrastructure such that communication among various participants of the MEC infrastructure and the one or more IoT sensor nodes may be streamlined (Shah, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights