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 application filed 03/18/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2024 has been placed in record and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant discloses in the claim “one or more processors of a distributed computing management function (DCMF)…” The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for having non-statutory matter. The DCMF is a software component, therefore the processors of a software (DCMF) could be interpreted to be software as well. Furthermore, applicant’s specification does not describe what kind of “processors” make up the software (DCMF). Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claims are interpreted as software or computer program and/or data structure which is non-statutory subject matter.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow).
Here, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2111), the claim as a whole covers a computer program which is not of the four statuary categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to a computer program, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter. Thus, a rejection is made properly.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 8-9, 11-13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2021/0136142 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2023/0084799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
generate, for transmission to a network, a request for computing resource availability for a computing task to be offloaded from the apparatus, comprising one or more attributes related to the computing task ([0047]: the client 103B would send an offloading request message to a controller (not shown) of the MEC network 100, which retains knowledge of the underlying topology of the domain 150 and a status of each of the edge cloud servers 125-129 in the domain 150. The controller would determine whether to offload the task 163 based on an amount of energy consumed by the client 103B if the client executes the task 163, an amount of energy consumed by an edge cloud server 125-129 if the edge cloud server 125-129 executes the task 163, and a latency experienced by the client 103B as a result of offloading the task 163 to the edge cloud server 125-129 (e.g. resource availability);and
process, based on signals received from the network, computing node information associated with a network node, wherein the apparatus offloads the computing task to the network node ([0047]: Subsequently, the controller would determine, for example, that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B. The controller would then send a message to the client 103B indicating that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B).
However, Dong does not disclose wherein the request comprises an indication of a Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP).
In an analogous art, Gupta discloses wherein the request comprises an indication of a Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) ([0071]: an application profile that specify a profile of the application or workload (e.g. UCCP) that the user desires to have execute upon compute instances to be launched at one or more provider substrate extensions. This profile of a user's workload can then be used by the provider network upon subsequent requests by a user, to launch one or more edge-optimized compute instances in a manner that satisfies the parameters defined by the user in the profile (e.g. task to offload). [0072],[0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name (e.g. request including profile indication) indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5—profile-name my_edge_app”) as well as values related to various parameters such as, for example, an identifier of one or more communication service providers at which to the launch instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong to comprise “wherein the request comprises an indication of a Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP).” taught by Gupta.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to sending a request comprising an indication of a stored application profile in order to identify an appropriate provider substrate extension location for execution of a user workload based on the parameters defined in the stored application profile, without the need to transmit the complete set of parameters (Gupta, [0071], [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more attributes comprise one of a task size of the computing task, a task complexity of the computing task, a delivery time of outputs for the computing task (Dong, [0061], [0063], [0066]: The offloading request message 300 includes a block field 306 comprising metadata 325. metadata 325 includes data describing the client 103A-B and/or data describing one or more edge cloud servers 125-129. The metadata 325 includes metadata 328, 331, 334, 337, 340, 343, 346, and 349. Metadata 328 includes an amount of offloading data 246 (e.g. task size) that is to be processed by an edge cloud server 125-129 to perform the task 163 at the edge cloud server 125-129), an indication of whether the computing task is locked, an indication of whether the computing task is interruptible, an indication of whether the computing task is to be executed in a synchronous manner, an indication of whether the computing task is to be executed in an asynchronous manner, computing power required for the computing task, a reliability required for the computing task, an availability required for the computing task, a privacy level of the computing task, a security level of the computing task, or a priority of the computing task.
Regarding claim 3, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the indication of the UCCP comprises a Ubiquitous Compute Characteristics Indicator (UCCI) index value identifying the UCCP (Gupta, [0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name (e.g. request including profile indication) indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5—profile-name my_edge_app”). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UCCP was created for a first computing task and wherein the computing task is a second computing task that is different from the first computing task (Gupta, [0071]: This profile of a user's workload can then be used by the provider network 100, upon subsequent requests by a user, to launch one or more edge-optimized compute instances in a manner that satisfies the parameters defined by the user in the profile. [0080]: customers may over time update the assets and/or configuration associated with a previously defined application profile. For example, in some embodiments, users can generate an application profile update request to a PSE compute service 502 to identify a location of updated resources from which edge-optimized instances are to be launched or to update other configurations associated with the application profile). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UCCP comprises a plurality of attributes (Gupta, [0102]: receiving a first request to create an application profile, the request including values for parameters related to execution of a workload at provider substrate extensions of a service provider network. In some embodiments, the parameters related to execution of the workload at provider substrate extensions of the service provider network include at least one of: a set of geographic areas within which to launch compute instances, a set of communications service providers at which to launch compute instances, a latency threshold, and wherein the method further comprises identifying a set of candidate provider substrate extensions satisfying the values for the parameters specified in the application profile). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: exclude a first set of the plurality of attributes from the request (Gupta, [0072]: a parameter value indicating a “user-friendly” name for the application profile (e.g., “—profile name my_edge_app”), and a number of other optional parameters related to execution of an identified workload at provider substrate extensions of a provider network. [0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name (e.g. request including profile indication) indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5—profile-name my_edge_app”) (i.e. The request is name using a name identifying stored profile and excluding other parameters). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein at least one of the plurality of attributes comprise a range of values or a tolerance for the at least one of the plurality of attributes (Gupta, [0102]: the request including values for parameters related to execution of a workload at provider substrate extensions of a service provider network. The parameters related to execution of the workload at provider substrate extensions of the service provider network include at least one of: a set of geographic areas within which to launch compute instances, a set of communications service providers at which to launch compute instances, a latency threshold, and wherein the method further comprises identifying a set of candidate provider substrate extensions satisfying the values for the parameters specified in the application profile). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: select the UCCP based on input from a user of the apparatus (Gupta, [0015]: a provider network enables users to create and configure “application profiles” that include parameters related to execution of user workloads at provider substrate extensions (e.g., including desired amounts of computing resources to be devoted to instances launched based on a profile, desired latency and geographic constraints for launched instances, instance placement and scaling configurations, etc.). Once an application profile is created, users can request the deployment of user workloads to provider substrate extensions by requesting instance launches based on a defined application profile). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Dong-Gupta 12. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: select the UCCP based on an application being executed by the apparatus (Gupta, [0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5 —profile-name my_edge_app”) as well as values related to various parameters such as an identifier of an application profile version to use). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes an application layer (Gupta, [0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5 —profile-name my_edge_app”) and an application enablement layer (Gupta, [0084]: PSE compute service 502 (application enablement layer) uses the customer-specified parameters in an application profile, in addition to any relevant parameters specified in the request, to determine one or more provider substrate extensions at which to launch instances based on a launch request 700). The same rationale applies as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Dong discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: generate, for transmission to a network, computing resource availability information ([0047]: the client 103B would send an offloading request message to a controller (not shown) of the MEC network 100, which retains knowledge of the underlying topology of the domain 150 and a status of each of the edge cloud servers 125-129 in the domain 150. The controller would determine, for example, that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B. The controller would then send a message to the client 103B indicating that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B); and
establish a user plane with a user equipment (UE), wherein the UE offloads a computing task to the apparatus based on the UCCP ([0046]: In such a case, the client 103A-B may offload one or more of these tasks 163 to one of the edge cloud servers 125-129 in the MEC network 100. Continuing with the example in which the client 103B offloads the task 163 to the edge cloud server 126. , [0061], [0063], [0066]: The offloading request message 300 includes a block field 306 comprising metadata 325. Metadata 325 includes data describing the client 103A-B and/or data describing one or more edge cloud servers 125-129 (e.g. profile).
However, Dong does not disclose computing resource availability information comprising an indication of a Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) comprising one or more attributes.
In an analogous art, Gupta discloses computing resource availability information comprising an indication of a Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) comprising one or more attributes ([0071]: an application profile that specify a profile of the application or workload (e.g. UCCP) that the user desires to have execute upon compute instances to be launched at one or more provider substrate extensions. This profile of a user's workload can then be used by the provider network upon subsequent requests by a user, to launch one or more edge-optimized compute instances in a manner that satisfies the parameters defined by the user in the profile (e.g. task to offload). [0072],[0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name (e.g. request including profile indication) indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5—profile-name my_edge_app”) as well as values related to various parameters such as, for example, an identifier of one or more communication service providers at which to the launch instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong to comprise “computing resource availability information comprising an indication of a Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) comprising one or more attributes” taught by Gupta.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to sending a request comprising an indication of a stored application profile in order to identify an appropriate provider substrate extension location for execution of a user workload based on the parameters defined in the stored application profile, without the need to transmit the complete set of parameters (Gupta, [0071], [0079]).
Claims 6-7, 15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Gupta, as applied to claim 5, in further view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0314495 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose wherein at least one attribute is indicated as mandatory for the computing task.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein at least one attribute is indicated as mandatory for the computing task (fig. 7, [0016]: The matching of the required capability profile and the existing capability profile may include matching the required capability profile and the existing capability profile based on whether a mandatory capability element and an optional capability element of the required capability profile are the same as a mandatory capability element and an optional capability element of the existing capability profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “wherein at least one attribute is indicated as mandatory for the computing task” taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled for creating a capability profile for matching and assessing software that satisfies user's requirements based on an interoperability (Lee, [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose wherein at least one attribute is indicated as optional for the computing task.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein at least one attribute is indicated as optional for the computing task (fig. 7, [0016]: matching the required capability profile and the existing capability profile based on whether a mandatory capability element and an optional capability element of the required capability profile are the same as a mandatory capability element and an optional capability element of the existing capability profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “wherein at least one attribute is indicated as optional for the computing task” taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled for optional capability elements to be further considered during the capability matching when assessing whether software satisfies user requirements before deployment, therefore improving resource management (Lee, [0002], [0009], [0108]).
Regarding claim 15, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the application layer determines the one or more attributes comprises a plurality of attributes related to the computing task (Dong, [0061], [0063], [0066]: The offloading request message 300 includes a block field 306 comprising metadata 325. metadata 325 includes data describing the client 103A-B and/or data describing one or more edge cloud servers 125-129. The metadata 325 includes metadata 328, 331, 334, 337, 340, 343, 346, and 349. Metadata 328 includes an amount of offloading data 246 (e.g. task size) that is to be processed by an edge cloud server 125-129 to perform the task 163 at the edge cloud server 125-129).
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose wherein the application enablement layer determines that at least one of the attributes is a mandatory attribute and at least one of the attributes is an optional attribute.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the application enablement layer determines that at least one of the attributes is a mandatory attribute and at least one of the attributes is an optional attribute (fig. 7, [0176]: capability unit matching procedure performed by an apparatus for managing software according to an example embodiment. [0179]: capability elements of the existing MSU capability profile may be matched with capability elements of the required capability profile. A capability profile may be a set of mandatory capability elements and optional capability elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “wherein the application enablement layer determines that at least one of the attributes is a mandatory attribute and at least one of the attributes is an optional attribute” taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled for optional capability elements to be further considered during the capability matching when assessing whether software satisfies user requirements before deployment, therefore improving resource management (Lee, [0002], [0009], [0108]).
Regarding claim 19, Dong discloses one or more processors of a distributed computing management function (DCMF) configured to: process, based on signals received from a first network node, computing resource availability information ([0047]: The controller would determine whether to offload the task 163 based on an amount of energy consumed by the client 103B if the client executes the task 163, an amount of energy consumed by an edge cloud server 125-129 if the edge cloud server 125-129 executes the task 163, and a latency experienced by the client 103B as a result of offloading the task 163 to the edge cloud server 125-129 (e.g. resource availability). [0071]: For example, an edge cloud server 125-129 is unqualified to perform the task 163 when the edge cloud server 125-129 does not have sufficient resources to perform the task 163 based on the metadata 325 associated with the task 163);
process, based on signals received from a second network node a request for computing resource availability for a computing task to be offloaded from the second network node ([0047]: the client 103B would send an offloading request message to a controller (not shown) of the MEC network 100, which retains knowledge of the underlying topology of the domain 150 and a status of each of the edge cloud servers 125-129 in the domain 150. The controller would determine, for example, that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B. The controller would then send a message to the client 103B indicating that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B).
However, Dong does not disclose computing resource availability information comprising an indication of a first Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) comprising one or more attributes wherein the request comprises an indication of a second UCCP comprising one or more attributes related to the computing task.
In an analogous art, Gupta discloses computing resource availability information comprising an indication of a first Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) comprising one or more attributes wherein the request comprises an indication of a second UCCP comprising one or more attributes related to the computing task ([0069]: users of the provider network utilize such edge-optimized instances via user-defined “application profiles.” An application profile generally enables users to define a set of parameters related to how a user desires a user workload to execute at provider substrate extensions. [0071]: an application profile that specify a profile of the application or workload (e.g. UCCP) that the user desires to have execute upon compute instances to be launched at one or more provider substrate extensions. [0072],[0083]: a workload launch request 700 can include an action name (e.g. request including profile indication) indicating a desires to launch N edge-optimized compute instances based on an identified application profile (e.g., “csp edge run −5—profile-name my_edge_app”) as well as values related to various parameters such as, for example, an identifier of one or more communication service providers at which to the launch instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong to comprise computing resource availability information comprising an indication of a first Ubiquitous Computing Characteristics Profile (UCCP) comprising one or more attributes wherein the request comprises an indication of a second UCCP comprising one or more attributes related to the computing task” taught by Gupta.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled sending a request comprising an indication of a stored application profile in order to identify an appropriate provider substrate extension location for execution of a user workload based on the parameters defined in the stored application profile, without the need to transmit the complete set of parameters (Gupta, [0071], [0079]).
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose determine whether the first UCCP satisfies the one or more attributes of the second UCCP.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses determine whether the first UCCP satisfies the one or more attributes of the second UCCP (fig. 7, [0176]: capability unit matching procedure performed by an apparatus for managing software according to an example embodiment. [0179]: capability elements (e.g. attributes) of the existing MSU capability profile may be matched with capability elements of the required capability profile. A capability profile may be a set of mandatory capability elements and optional capability elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “determine whether the first UCCP satisfies the one or more attributes of the second UCCP” taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to match capability elements of an existing capability profile with capability elements of a require capability profile to assess whether software satisfies user requirements before deployment, therefore improving resource management (Lee, [0002], [0009]).
Regarding claim 20, Dong-Gupta-Lee discloses the one or more processors of claim 19, further configured to: generate, for transmission to the second network node, computing node information associated with the first network node, wherein the second network node offloads one or more computing tasks to the first network node (Dong, [0047]: the client 103B would send an offloading request message to a controller (not shown) of the MEC network 100, which retains knowledge of the underlying topology of the domain 150 and a status of each of the edge cloud servers 125-129 in the domain 150. The controller would determine, for example, that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B. The controller would then send a message to the client 103B indicating that the edge cloud server 126 is able to perform the task 163 on behalf of the client 106B).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Gupta, as applied to claim 5, in further view of Fries et al. (US 2011/0069719 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose wherein a first attribute has a dependency on a second attribute, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether the first attribute is to be included in the UCCP based on the dependency.
In an analogous art, Fries discloses wherein a first attribute has a dependency on a second attribute, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether the first attribute is to be included in the UCCP based on the dependency ([0072]-[0075]: allow for conditional presence or alternative field selection. That is, the presence of a field can be conditionally dependent on the value of another field. Conditional inclusion of a field (e.g. attribute)is accomplished in two ways. First, any field definition can include the attributes “presentField” and “presentValue”. This fragment defines two fields, Status and IeeeAddr. The IeeeAddr field will only be present if the field Status has the value of 0 (e.g. dependency). The presentValue attribute can also contain a list of alternatives separated by the vertical bar character; in that case the field will be considered present if it matches any of the values listed….fields can be conditionally included is through use of a type of field that can contain a number of alternative fields, selected by the value of another field).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “wherein a first attribute has a dependency on a second attribute, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether the first attribute is to be included in the UCCP based on the dependency” taught by Fries.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled efficient construction of field definitions (e.g. profile) by ensuring that dependent fields are included only when their corresponding dependent field value are present (Fries, [0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the application layer determines the one or more attributes comprises a plurality of attributes related to the computing task (Dong, [0061], [0063], [0066]: The offloading request message 300 includes a block field 306 comprising metadata 325. metadata 325 includes data describing the client 103A-B and/or data describing one or more edge cloud servers 125-129. The metadata 325 includes metadata 328, 331, 334, 337, 340, 343, 346, and 349. Metadata 328 includes an amount of offloading data 246 (e.g. task size) that is to be processed by an edge cloud server 125-129 to perform the task 163 at the edge cloud server 125-129).
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose wherein the application enablement layer determines that a first set of attributes of the plurality of attributes is to be excluded from the request.
In an analogous art, Fries discloses wherein the application enablement layer determines that a first set of attributes of the plurality of attributes is to be excluded from the request ([0063]: the frame engine 124 uses the frame name determined in step 406 to select the appropriate field 122. [0072]-[0075]: allow for conditional presence or alternative field selection. That is, the presence of a field can be conditionally dependent on the value of another field).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “wherein the application enablement layer determines that a first set of attributes of the plurality of attributes is to be excluded from the request” taught by Fries.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled efficient construct of field definitions (e.g. profile) by ensuring that dependent fields are included only when their corresponding dependent field value are present, therefore preventing the inclusion of fields that are not applicable (Fries, [0072]).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Gupta, as applied to claim 13, in further view of Sah et al. (US 2016/0219420 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 13.
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose wherein the application layer indicates an identification for the request and the application enablement layer substitutes an identification of the application enablement layer for the identification of the application layer in the request.
In an analogous art, Sah discloses wherein the application layer indicates an identification for the request and the application enablement layer substitutes an identification of the application enablement layer for the identification of the application layer in the request ([0266]: The request may include a first sequence identifier of the SMPP client. At step 754, the intermediary device replaces the first sequence identifier in the request with a second sequence identifier generated by the intermediary device. At step 756, the intermediary device stores a mapping of the second sequence identifier to the first sequence identifier and a connection between the intermediary device and the SMPP client.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “wherein the application layer indicates an identification for the request and the application enablement layer substitutes an identification of the application enablement layer for the identification of the application layer in the request” taught by Sah.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled the intermediated device to replaces the identifier in the request with an intermediary device generated identifier in order to maintain a mapping between the two identifiers, and use the mapping to forward requests and route corresponding responses (Sah, [0259], [0266]).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Gupta, as applied to claim 13, in further view of Badic et al. (US 2022/0360645 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Dong-Gupta discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the application layer determines the one or more attributes (Dong, [0061], [0063], [0066]: The offloading request message 300 includes a block field 306 comprising metadata 325. metadata 325 includes data describing the client 103A-B and/or data describing one or more edge cloud servers 125-129. The metadata 325 includes metadata 328, 331, 334, 337, 340, 343, 346, and 349. Metadata 328 includes an amount of offloading data 246 (e.g. task size) that is to be processed by an edge cloud server 125-129 to perform the task 163 at the edge cloud server 125-129).
However, Dong-Gupta does not disclose the application enablement layer determines the UCCP corresponding to the one or more attributes.
In an analogous art, Badic discloses the application enablement layer determines the UCCP corresponding to the one or more attributes ([0121]: The Application Profile Unit (APU) may operate to analyze application parameters and requirements and communicate them to the DSU. [0123]: The Decision and Scheduling Unit (DSU) may operate to analyze information from the APU and SPU and make decisions for the offloading to be performed. The DSU may then schedule or assign task(s) to the associated MEC server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong-Gupta to comprise “the application enablement layer determines the UCCP corresponding to the one or more attributes” taught by Badic.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled analysis of application parameters and requirements from the Application Profile Unit (APU) together with system requirements of the System Profile Unit (SPU) before determining whether to offload UE application tasks to discovered edge computing resources, and make an offloading decision based on the analyzed application and system parameters (Badic, [0006], [0123], [0149]).
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Liu et al., US 2023/0376355 A1: Methods, Terminals and Network Devices For Computing Task Allocation and Updating.
Inam et al., US 12,443,176 B2: Intelligent Task Offloading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
/OSCAR A LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights