DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 21, 22, 24-31, 33-37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2018/0084021, “Rubin”) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2018/0124672, “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 21, Rubin discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
- receiving, from a computing device, at a first cellular base station, a request for edge-based computing (See ¶.25, the number of mobile devices requesting identical application services in the coverage area of the at least one wireless RF access node; See Fig.17 and ¶.225, when the UE software publishes a service request message to the topic “ServiceControl/StreamingMovieDelivery/<unique ID>,” it may be routed to the service instance at the serving eNB location; See 308 Fig.3 and ¶.110, OptServereNB, which is for edge-based computing, connected with eNB; See 1304 Fig.17 and ¶.217, OptServereNB),
- wherein: the first cellular base station is collocated with a first edge-based data center (See Fig.3 and Fig.17, eNB1 is collocated with OptServereNB as a first edge-base data center; Examiner’s Note: Murakami discloses the limitation “edge-based data center”),
- the request is received on a first network to which a plurality of cellular base stations are connected (See Fig.17 and ¶.225, when the UE software publishes a service request message, it may be routed to the service instance at the serving eNB1; See 112 Fig.17, wireless back haul network is connected to eNB1 and eNB2),
- the request is received wirelessly from the computing device by the first cellular base station (See 112 Fig.17, LTE air interface for wireless connection between UE and eNB1), and
- the first edge-based data center is connected to a second network of a plurality of edge-based data centers, including the first edge-based data center (See Fig.17, OptServereNB1 is connected to eNB2 in a second network via a router 702; See ¶.12, the first and second wireless RF access nodes may be in different communication networks;
PNG
media_image1.png
319
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
- determining that a network path generation condition is satisfied (See ¶.293, when the Path Switch message is received, the MME determines from its provisioned data if the target Cell has CB-for-GU enabled. If it does not, there is no change to the X2 Handover processing);
- determining, based on the satisfaction of the network path generation condition (See ¶.293 above), a path on the second network to a second edge-based data center of the plurality of edge-based data centers (See ¶.12, the wireless control facility may be adapted to manage a mobile device handover of the mobile device from the at least one wireless RF access node to a second wireless RF access node, so as to migrate the service access point from a local optimization server associated with the at least one wireless RF access node to a local optimization server associated with the second wireless RF access node. …The first and second wireless RF access nodes may be in different communication networks); and
- causing the request to be conveyed via the path to the second edge-based data center (See ¶.101, packets are routed from the UE over the LTE air interface to the eNB, where they may be placed in a particular GTP tunnel (called a bearer), and sent to the SGW, and then to the PGW, and then via the Internet (or other Packet Data Network) to the Server which is their destination. Packets may then be sent from the Server via the Internet (or other Packet Data Network) to the PGW , and then via a particular GTP tunnel to the SGW, eNB, and finally to the UE over the LTE air interface).
Rubin discloses OptservereNB, as an edge data center, connected to each of eNB1 and eNB2 (See Fig.17), but does not explicitly disclose the limitation “edge-based data center.” However, Murakami discloses “edge-based data center (Murakami, See 8 Fig.6,
PNG
media_image2.png
523
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See ¶.94, an edge DC 8 illustratively stores user data such as application data or the like that is used by the mobile device 9. In addition, the edge DC #1 and edge DC #2 may be connected to communicate with each other. The edge DC #1 provides data to the mobile device 9 by way of the eNB #1 and the edge DC #2 provides data to the mobile device 9 by way of the eNB #2; See ¶.100, the edge DC #1 may transfer the application data addressed to the mobile device 9 to the edge DC #2).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “edge-based data center collocated with each of the eNBs” as taught by Murakami into the system of Rubin, so that it provides a way for edge DC provided in each the base station to improve the real-time performance in the thin client service (Murakami, See ¶.95).
Regarding claim 22, Rubin discloses “the determining that the network path generation condition is satisfied comprises determining that a network path has become inaccessible (See ¶.293, return the path switch request failure message).”
Regarding claim 24, Rubin and Murakami disclose “the determining that the network path generation condition is satisfied comprises determining that a computational limit of the first edge-based data center has been exceeded (Rubin, See ¶.9, move the service source to the local optimization server and eliminate, or minimize, the utilization of the communication network, thereby lowering latency for applications, and increasing the bandwidth available on the communication network for other services; See ¶.218, storing may be more limited in the OptServereNB; Examiner’s Note: Murakami discloses the edge data center as rejected in claim 1). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Rubin discloses “the determining that the network path generation condition is satisfied comprises: obtaining a geolocation of the computing device; and determining an anticipated cellular base station of the plurality of cellular base stations that is predicted to receive data from the computing device after a handoff operation (See ¶.99, the deployment of servers as close as possible to the wireless users, namely, via deployments associated with the eNB (E-UTRAN Node B or Evolved Node B) network elements, such as through providing the servers with high speed connections to the eNB, locating the servers in proximity to the eNB, co-locating the servers with the eNB; See ¶.105, providing the Optimization Server with high speed connections to the PGW, locating the Optimization Server in proximity to the PGW, co-locating the Optimization Server with the PGW, and the like; See ¶.106, ead to the association of Optimization Servers 204 together with the eNB elements, such as through providing the Optimization Server with high speed connections to the eNB, locating the Optimization Server in proximity to the eNB, co-locating the Optimization Server with the eNB, and the like. If the service to the UE 104 (e.g., streaming a real-time video event) can be provided via the Optimization Server 204 that is associated with the eNB 102 that serves the UE 104, then the back haul network 112 usage may be minimized in delivering that service to the UE 104. Also, the delay experienced by packets exchanged between the Service Access Point (i.e., the Optimization Server 204) and the UE 104 may be minimized, because those packets only transit the eNB 102 and the LTE air interface; See ¶.12, the coverage areas of the first and second wireless RF access nodes may overlap, where no break in service continuity occurs during handover of a mobile device transitioning from the first to the second wireless RF access node. The first and second wireless RF access nodes may be in different communication networks where each wireless access node is in a wireless communication network that is selected from the group including an LTE communication network, a 3G communication network, a WiFi communication network, and any wireless communication network that deploys nodes providing local user access and a centralized point of packet routing or processing; See further ¶.17 and ¶.110 for handover procedure in details).”
Regarding claim 26, Rubin discloses “the anticipated cellular base station is determined at least in part based on a predicted route of the computing device (See ¶.289-290, handover via a routed path).”
Regarding claim 27, Rubin discloses “predicting the predicted route of the computing device (See ¶.99, service delays, back haul utilization, and server and long haul network utilization may be resolved in the APN network via the deployment of servers as close as possible to the wireless users, namely, via deployments associated with the eNB (E-UTRAN Node B or Evolved Node B) network elements, such as through providing the servers with high speed connections to the eNB, locating the servers in proximity to the eNB, co-locating the servers with the eNB, and the like; See ¶.232, it may be possible for the network to perform verification tests of the user identity before allowing a user to maintain access with the network, or with the part of the network that has CB-for-GU enabled).”
Regarding claim 28, Rubin discloses “the determining that the network path generation condition is satisfied comprises determining that a recurring time condition is satisfied (See ¶.167, if the current UE location is not among the ones determined via the just-received measurement reports, and if more than one UE-location has been determined, the MAC selects the UE 104 location associated with the best returned CQI value, and updates the current UE 104 location accordingly. If the current UE location is among the ones just reported, or if it is the only one reported, the current UE location is not updated at this point in time; See ¶.168, Whether the current UE location has been updated at this point, or not, the aperiodic CQI reporting is repeated at H msec intervals (a provisioned number of 20 msec intervals, e.g., H=25 for making aperiodic measurements every 500 ms) until a single UE location is determined, and which does not change for M (a provisioned value) consecutive H*20 msec intervals. If the K msec periodic UE check interval occurs before the UE 104 location determined from the reports remains fixed in M consecutive reports, the K msec periodic location check is not performed for this UE 104, and the check for M consecutive fixed UE 104 location determinations is continued at the H*20 msec rate).”
Regarding claim 29, Rubin discloses “based on the request being conveyed to the second edge-based data center, analyzing, with the second edge-based data center, sensor data of the computing device (See ¶.8, a wireless network that has the ability to acquire, process, store, and redistribute the sensor data efficiently; See Fig.37 and ¶.73, FIG. 37 depicts a fixed sensor data collection, analysis, and alarm generation and distribution; See ¶.313, depending on the application, data from a multiplicity of sensors of the same or of different types may need to be analyzed together to generate results, or to generate tertiary data, and then may need to be distributed to one, or to a multiplicity of end points for further processing or for decision making Wireless technology may offer beneficial ways to acquire and transport the data collected by sensors; See ¶.314, Wireless network to collect and distribute the sensor data among a large set of end points in an efficient manner, and the ability to use the Optimization Servers 304 and 308 as storage and analysis processing points for the sensor data).”
Regarding claim 30, Rubin discloses “the computing device is a mobile device (See 104 Fig.17, UE).”
Regarding claim 31, Rubin discloses “a self-driving car comprises the computing device (See ¶.120, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which is operated autonomously without human; ¶.313, sensors may be deployed on the in moving vehicle).”
Regarding claim 33, Rubin does not explicitly disclose what Murakami discloses “the second edge-based data center is selected from the plurality of edge-based data centers for network path generation based on telemetry of each of the plurality of edge-based data centers (Murakami, See ¶.46, this service unavailable period occurs as data addressed to a certain mobile device is transferred from an edge DC provided in the first base station to an edge DC provided in the second base station at the timing when the mobile device hands over from the first base station to the second base station; See Fig.28 selecting edge DC #2 based on threshold metric).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 34, Rubin discloses “the telemetry is obtained from advertised performance metric values provided by each of the edge-based data centers (See ¶.186, a distributed set of Publish/Subscribe (P/S) Brokers 1304 may be set up to run on the set of Optimization Servers 202, 204 shown in FIG. 2, where the P/S Brokers 1304 may use the Publish/Subscribe communications paradigm to route packets efficiently between an entity 1308 that Publishes a packet stream and all entities 1310 that Subscribe to receive packets from that stream Topic. See an example deployment in FIG. 14; See ¶.192, data rate required; See ¶.313, distributing sensor datas; See ¶.314, distribute the sensor data among a large set of end points; See ¶.355, Depending on their capabilities, they may monitor for movement, or may detect smoke or chemicals, or may detect heat, or sound, etc. When they sense something to report, these sensors 3312 may send their information to the Fixed Sensor Data Analysis service 3304, which may analyze the data, and generate an Alarm, if appropriate).”
Regarding claim 35, Rubin discloses “advertising performance metric values (See ¶.99, the APN may combine proven leading edge commercial wireless design and architecture methodologies with advanced RF technologies to substantially improve spectrum efficiency, spectrum usage, and data performance; See ¶.261, other data pertinent to the performance of the test, wherein the other data includes GPS location).”
Regarding claim 36, Rubin discloses “the second network is a backhaul network (See 112 Fig.17, wireless back haul network).”
Regarding claim 37, Rubin discloses “the second network is a crosshaul network (See ¶.459, a cross-network).”
Regarding claim 39, Rubin discloses “servicing the request with a distributed application executed on more than one of the plurality of edge-based data centers (See Fig.15 and Fig.17, a plurality of OptServereNB as edge-based data centers; Examiner’s Note: Murakami discloses the limitation “edge-based DC”).
Regarding claim 40, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim 21 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Murakami and further in view of Grichnik et al. (US 2015/0100378, “Grichnik”).
Regarding claim 23, Rubin and Murakami do not explicitly disclose what Grichnik discloses “the determining that the network path generation condition is satisfied comprises determining that a new edge-based data center has been added to the second network (Grichnik, See ¶.50, determine whether to add, or close, or expand a temporary edge DC based on the merits of a single product that is selected in step 602).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “determining that the network path generation condition is satisfied comprises determining that a new edge-based data center has been added to the second network” as taught by Grichnik into the system of Rubin and Murakami, so that it provides a way of optimizing the respective facility designs of central DC, edge DC, and temporary edge DC based on the respective storage space requirements for central DC, edge DC, and temporary edge DC (Grichnik, See ¶.48).”
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin in view of Murakami and further in view of Qaisar (US 2017/0048308, “Qaisar”).
Regarding claim 32, Rubin and Murakami do not explicitly disclose what Qaisar discloses “instructing actuators of the self-driving car to adjust based on the analysis of the sensor data of the computing device (Qaisar, See ¶.9, next generation computing devices and networks such as autonomous vehicles require low latency communication between themselves and with infrastructure such as roadside units. Similarly industrial automation requires low latency communication between various sensing nodes and between nodes and actuators).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “instructing actuators of the self-driving car to adjust based on the analysis of the sensor data of the computing device” as taught by Qaisar into the system of Rubin and Murakami, so that it provides highly available and highly reliable networks to provide 24/7 monitoring service for smart traffic system (Qaisar, See ¶.9).
allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411