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
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments, filed on 06/2/2026 with respect to the pending claims in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to claims 1 and 11. See the rejection below of claims 1 and 11 for relevant citations found in Zhao and Slater disclosing the newly added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2020/0358877), (hereinafter, Zhao) in view of Slater (US 2023/0275944), (hereinafter, Slater).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Zhao discloses a method/apparatus of providing an edge computing service to a user equipment (UE) in a network of a mobile communication system (= method of allocating service request in a system including one or more edge servers, see [0006]), the method comprising:
receiving a service request signal from the UE (= central management server 110 receives a service request and route of a mobile object from mobile object, see [0067]);
determining an edge server type to support the UE, based on information included in the service request signal (= server 110 may determine which edge servers have communication coverage that covers the route, see [0069]; whereby the route 312 of the mobile object is being associated with the “information”; and the edge server that has coverage that covers the route is being associated with the “edge server type”);
determining an edge server to support the UE, based on the edge server type determined to support the UE (= server 110 may determine which edge servers have communication coverage that covers the route, see [0069]; whereby the route 312 of the mobile object is being associated with the “information”; and the edge server that has coverage that covers the route is being associated with the “edge server type”); and
providing the edge computing service to the UE through the determined edge server (= allocating the service request to edge server 146-1, see [0075]).
Zhao explicitly fails to disclose the method/apparatus, wherein the edge server type includes a ground edge server type and an aerial edge server type.
However, Slater, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose ground and edge server located on mobile platforms such as aircraft (see, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Slater with Zhao for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides bi-directional communication.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, as mentioned in claims 1 and 11, Zhao explicitly fails to disclose the method/apparatus, wherein the aerial edge server type is associated with an aerial edge server including one or more drones, or an aerial edge server including one or more satellites.
However, Slater, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose ground and edge server located on mobile platforms such as aircraft (see, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Slater with Zhao for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides bi-directional communication.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, as mentioned in claims 1 and 11, Zhao further discloses the method/apparatus, wherein the information included in the service request signal includes one or more of location information of the UE, channel quality information, service type information, and capability information of the UE (= route information, see, [0069]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, as mentioned in claim 1 and 11, Zhao further discloses the method/apparatus, wherein the network is in communication with a central server, wherein the UE comprises an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV), and wherein the service request signal is received by the central server via a ground base station or an aerial base station (see, [0029 and 0067]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, as mentioned in claims 6 and 16, Zhao further discloses the method/apparatus, wherein the information included in the service request signal includes one or more of vertiport information and corridor information of the UAV
(= route information, see, [0067 and 0069]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, as mentioned in claims 7 and 17, Zhao further discloses the method, wherein the central server is configured to: determine the edge server type to support the UE as a ground edge server type or an aerial edge server type; and determine the edge server to support the UE among one or more edge servers related to the edge server type, based on one or more of the vertiport information and the corridor information (= route information, see, [0067 and 0069]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as mentioned in claims 1 and 11, Zhao further discloses the method/apparatus, wherein the UE comprises one among a plurality of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) and a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and wherein the aerial edge server type is associated with aerial edge server comprising one among a plurality of aerial edge servers that provide edge computing service to the plurality of UGVs or the plurality of UAVs (see, [0029, 0067 and 0069]).
3. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao and Slater in view of Das Gupta et al., (US 2020/0351344), (hereinafter, Gupta).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, as mentioned in claims 9 and 19, the combination of Zhao and Slater explicitly fails to disclose that the method/apparatus, further comprising: selecting the aerial edge server based on at least one of location information of the UE, movement path information of the UE, required quality levels of the UE, or any combination thereof, by using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model.
However, Gupta, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose that the method/apparatus, further comprising: selecting the aerial edge server based on at least one of location information of the UE (= towers closest to the end user device), movement path information of the UE, required quality levels of the UE, or any combination thereof, by using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model (= global modeling via machine learning, see [0041]; once global model is initiated, the global model is pushed to selected subset of edge server, see [0042]; and edge servers can be selected purposefully; resides in towers closest to the end user device, see [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Gupta with Zhao and Slater for the benefit of achieving a global edge server system that each edge server contribute to the development of global model independently.
CONCLUSION
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
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).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights