DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data processing module”, “local data processing unit” in claim 1, 3, 9, 11, and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “centralized control module” 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. AlthoughTherefore, 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.
Dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected under the same rational as the independent claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’ORO et al. (US 2022/0022044 A1) hereinafter D’ORO.
Regarding claim 1, D’ORO teaches: A method for deploying applications within a wireless network infrastructure, ([0044]-[0049], Fig. 2 — Methods for MEC slicing in 5G networks; three-tier architecture for deploying services)
comprising: initiating, by a centralized control module in a pre-configured hardware unit having a 5G wireless communication module, an edge computing device, a centralized control module, and a data processing module with access to cloud resources, a setup procedure upon receiving a deployment command, the setup procedure including activating the 5G wireless communication module to establish a network connection; ([0046]-[0049] (MEC hosts with 5G), Fig. 2 (architecture), Fig. 5 (5G networking) — System receives slice requests and initiates resource allocation; MEC hosts provide 5G connectivity)
deploying, by the edge computing device, user equipment (UE) operable to communicate with a plurality of sensors and cameras through the established network connection; ([0101]-[0102], Fig. 12-13 — Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphones as UEs with cameras and video streaming)
managing, by the centralized control module, an application deployment via an edge cloud optimizer configured to allocate resources between the edge computing device and the cloud resources based on real-time analysis of network conditions and application requirements; ([0059]-[0064] (optimization problem ESP), [0047]-[0049] (management process), [0077]-[0084] (distributed optimization) — Centralized and distributed algorithms optimize resource allocation based on requests and constraints) and
dynamically adjusting computing resource allocation between the edge computing device and cloud resources to meet the application requirements and network conditions during automated application deployment and optimization. ([0077]-[0084] (ADMM iterations), Fig. 1 (dynamic coupling effects), Fig. 14-15 (dynamic slice activity) — Iterative optimization adjusts resources; experiments show dynamic allocation)
Regarding claim 2, D’ORO teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the 5G wireless communication module is configured to perform network slicing to dedicate a portion of the network specifically for the deployed applications. ([0044]-[0045], Fig. 2 — Core focus on network slicing in 5G; slices dedicate resources to specific services)
Regarding claim 3, D’ORO teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the edge computing device further comprises a local data processing unit for performing initial analytics on data received from the sensors and cameras prior to transmission to the cloud resources. ([0046] (MEC services), [0055]-[0056] (computation examples), [0103]-[0106] (video transcoding) — Edge nodes perform local processing including video transcoding)
Regarding claim 4, D’ORO teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the centralized control module includes a graphical user interface for monitoring and controlling the deployment and management of the applications. ([0047] —Tenants access the MEC slicing technology to visualize relevant information)
Regarding claim 5, D’ORO teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising dynamically updating the application deployment based on changes in an operational environment as detected by the sensors and cameras. ([0047]-[0049] (dynamic slice requests), Fig. 14 (dynamic flow changes), [0077]-[0084] (iterative updates) — System responds to new slice requests; flows start/stop dynamically)
Regarding claim 6, D’ORO teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising optimizing data flow between the sensors, edge computing device, and cloud resources to minimize latency and maximize bandwidth efficiency. ([0059]-[0064] (optimization for efficiency), Fig. 7-9 (efficiency results) — MEC reduces latency; optimization avoids over-provisioning)
Regarding claim 9, D’ORO teaches: A system for deploying applications within a wireless network infrastructure, ([0044]-[0049], Fig. 2 — Methods for MEC slicing in 5G networks; three-tier architecture for deploying services)
comprising: a pre-configured hardware unit equipped with a 5G wireless communication module, an edge computing device, a centralized control module with a graphical user interface, and one or more processor devices configured to access cloud resources, the processor being further configured for:
initiating, by the centralized control module, a setup procedure upon receiving a deployment command, wherein the setup procedure includes activating the 5G wireless communication module to establish a network connection; ([0046]-[0049] (MEC hosts with 5G), Fig. 2 (architecture), Fig. 5 (5G networking) — System receives slice requests and initiates resource allocation; MEC hosts provide 5G connectivity)
deploying, by the edge computing device, user equipment (UE) operable to communicate with a plurality of sensors and cameras through the established network connection; ([0101]-[0102], Fig. 12-13 — Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphones as UEs with cameras and video streaming)
managing, by the centralized control module, an application deployment via an edge cloud optimizer configured to allocate resources between the edge computing device and the cloud resources based on real-time analysis of network conditions and application requirements; ([0059]-[0064] (optimization problem ESP), [0047]-[0049] (management process), [0077]-[0084] (distributed optimization) — Centralized and distributed algorithms optimize resource allocation based on requests and constraints) and
dynamically adjusting computing resource allocation between the edge computing device and cloud resources to meet the application requirements and network conditions during automated application deployment and optimization. ([0077]-[0084] (ADMM iterations), Fig. 1 (dynamic coupling effects), Fig. 14-15 (dynamic slice activity) — Iterative optimization adjusts resources; experiments show dynamic allocation)
Regarding claim 10, D’ORO teaches: The system of claim 9, wherein the 5G wireless communication module is configured to perform network slicing to dedicate a portion of the network specifically for the deployed applications. ([0044]-[0045], Fig. 2 — Core focus on network slicing in 5G; slices dedicate resources to specific services)
Regarding claim 11, D’ORO teaches: The system of claim 9, wherein the edge computing device further comprises a local data processing unit for performing initial analytics on data received from the sensors and cameras prior to transmission to the cloud resources. ([0046] (MEC services), [0055]-[0056] (computation examples), [0103]-[0106] (video transcoding) — Edge nodes perform local processing including video transcoding)
Regarding claim 12, D’ORO teaches: The system of claim 9, wherein the centralized control module includes a graphical user interface for monitoring and controlling the deployment and management of the applications. ([0047] —Tenants access the MEC slicing technology to visualize relevant information)
Regarding claim 13, D’ORO teaches: The system of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured for dynamically updating the application deployment based on changes in an operational environment as detected by the sensors and cameras. ([0047]-[0049] (dynamic slice requests), Fig. 14 (dynamic flow changes), [0077]-[0084] (iterative updates) — System responds to new slice requests; flows start/stop dynamically)
Regarding claim 14, D’ORO teaches: The system of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured for optimizing data flow between the sensors, edge computing device, and cloud resources to minimize latency and maximize bandwidth efficiency. ([0059]-[0064] (optimization for efficiency), Fig. 7-9 (efficiency results) — MEC reduces latency; optimization avoids over-provisioning)
Regarding claim 17, D’ORO teaches: A computer program product for deploying applications within a wireless network infrastructure, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform a method ([0044]-[0049], Fig. 2 — Methods for MEC slicing in 5G networks; three-tier architecture for deploying services) comprising:
initiating, by a centralized control module in a pre-configured hardware unit having a 5G wireless communication module, an edge computing device, a centralized control module, and a data processing module with access to cloud resources, a setup procedure upon receiving a deployment command, the setup procedure including activating the 5G wireless communication module to establish a network connection; ([0046]-[0049] (MEC hosts with 5G), Fig. 2 (architecture), Fig. 5 (5G networking) — System receives slice requests and initiates resource allocation; MEC hosts provide 5G connectivity)
deploying, by the edge computing device, user equipment (UE) operable to communicate with a plurality of sensors and cameras through the established network connection; ([0101]-[0102], Fig. 12-13 — Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphones as UEs with cameras and video streaming)
managing, by the centralized control module, an application deployment via an edge cloud optimizer configured to allocate resources between the edge computing device and the cloud resources based on real-time analysis of network conditions and application requirements; ([0059]-[0064] (optimization problem ESP), [0047]-[0049] (management process), [0077]-[0084] (distributed optimization) — Centralized and distributed algorithms optimize resource allocation based on requests and constraints) and
dynamically adjusting computing resource allocation between the edge computing device and cloud resources to meet the application requirements and network conditions during automated application deployment and optimization. ([0077]-[0084] (ADMM iterations), Fig. 1 (dynamic coupling effects), Fig. 14-15 (dynamic slice activity) — Iterative optimization adjusts resources; experiments show dynamic allocation)
Regarding claim 18, D’ORO teaches: The computer program product as recited in claim 17, wherein the 5G wireless communication module is configured to perform network slicing to dedicate a portion of the network specifically for the deployed applications. ([0044]-[0045], Fig. 2 — Core focus on network slicing in 5G; slices dedicate resources to specific services)
Regarding claim 19, D’ORO teaches: The computer program product as recited in claim 17, wherein the edge computing device further comprises a local data processing unit for performing initial analytics on data received from the sensors and cameras prior to transmission to the cloud resources. ([0046] (MEC services), [0055]-[0056] (computation examples), [0103]-[0106] (video transcoding) — Edge nodes perform local processing including video transcoding)
Regarding claim 20, D’ORO teaches: The computer program product as recited in claim 17, further comprising dynamically updating the application deployment based on changes in an operational environment as detected by the sensors and cameras. ([0047]-[0049] (dynamic slice requests), Fig. 14 (dynamic flow changes), [0077]-[0084] (iterative updates) — System responds to new slice requests; flows start/stop dynamically)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’ORO as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Iacaruso et al. (US 2020/0241987 A1) hereinafter Iacaruso.
Regarding claim 7, D’ORO does not explicitly teach wherein the setup procedure further includes a self-test to verify an integrity and readiness of the pre-configured hardware unit for deployment.
However, Iacaruso discloses wherein the setup procedure further includes a self-test to verify an integrity and readiness of the pre-configured hardware unit for deployment. ([0075] and Fig. 8 disclose a self-test verification and self test for a hardward unit that compares results with desired results.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified setup procedures disclosed by D’ORO to include the self-test procedure of Iacaruso . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because functionality and resulting safety of devices may be impacted by multiple system issues that should be easily identified through self tests as indicated by Icaruso [0004].
Regarding claim 15, D’ORO does not explicitly teach wherein the setup procedure further includes a self-test to verify an integrity and readiness of the pre-configured hardware unit for deployment.
However, Iacaruso discloses wherein the setup procedure further includes a self-test to verify an integrity and readiness of the pre-configured hardware unit for deployment. ([0075] and Fig. 8 disclose a self-test verification and self test for a hardward unit that compares results with desired results.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified setup procedures disclosed by D’ORO to include the self-test procedure of Iacaruso . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because functionality and resulting safety of devices may be impacted by multiple system issues that should be easily identified through self tests as indicated by Icaruso [0004].
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’ORO as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Butler et al. (US 2022/0197773 A1) hereinafter Butler.
Regarding claim 8, D’ORO does not explicitly teach: further comprising retrieving, by the centralized control module, additional applications from an application repository based on user selection through a user interface.
However Butler discloses: further comprising retrieving, by the centralized control module, additional applications from an application repository based on user selection through a user interface. ([0444-0447] – Customer facing service portal for UE applications that may interact with MEC system)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified services disclosed by D’ORO to include a catalog of a plurality of user selectable services of Butler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a enabling a user to utilize a plurality of apps with MEC increases the functionality and capability of the MEC as disclosed by Butler [0448].
Regarding claim 16, D’ORO does not explicitly teach: wherein the processor is further configured for retrieving, by the centralized control module, additional applications from an application repository based on user selection through the user interface.
However Butler discloses: wherein the processor is further configured for retrieving, by the centralized control module, additional applications from an application repository based on user selection through the user interface. ([0444-0447] – Customer facing service portal for UE applications that may interact with MEC system)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified services disclosed by D’ORO to include a catalog of a plurality of user selectable services of Butler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a enabling a user to utilize a plurality of apps with MEC increases the functionality and capability of the MEC as disclosed by Butler [0448].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amulothu et al. (US 2018/0287959 A1) discloses deploying IOT cloud based sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Jensen whose telephone number is (571)270-5443. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 EST.
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.
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.
NICHOLAS JENSEN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472