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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy, Application No. CN202210082047.1, filed on January 1, 2022, has been filed in Application No. 18/783,298, filed on February 26, 2026. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It is also noted that the present application is a 371 National Phase Patent Application of PCT/CN2023/072189, for which the 371(c) filing date is January 13, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 and 06/27/2025 has been considered by examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 3 states “determine a first task information about a first to be executed,” to “determine [[a]]the first task information about [[a]]the first task to be executed,” because claim 11, line 4 states “receiving a first task information about a task to be executed…” so it seems claim 16 needs to state “the” instead of “a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pan discloses an information processing method, comprising: receiving, by a first communication apparatus (par.118, second device or Par.77, device 5), a first task information about a task to be executed and that is from a second communication apparatus (par.118, first device or par.77, device 1) (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." and paragraph [0118], "S406: The first device sends the task in the to-be-executed AI task group to each of the selected at least one second device," (i.e., the first device sends AI task to be executed by the second device.)),
the first task information comprising a task identifier of the task (paragraph [0077], "the device 5 records information (for example, identification information of the device 1) of the device 1 in a collaborative computing table of the device 5," and paragraph [0078], "The collaborative computing table of the device 5 is a table maintained (including created and/or updated) by the device 5 to manage information of the collaborative computing device of the device 5. The collaborative computing table of the device 5 may include identification information of the collaborative computing device of the device 5, information of an idle computing resource of each collaborative computing device, and the like." and paragraph [0106], “information distributed by the application may further include identification information of each of the plurality of subtasks.” (i.e., each task is broken into subtask and distributes the subtask by the first device to other device in order to perform the task and then receive the task back see paragraph [0129].)),
the task comprising at least one of: an artificial intelligence (AI) task, or a sensing task (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." (i.e., the task is an AI task.));
and causing, by the first communication apparatus and based on the first task information, the task to be executed (paragraph [0126], Fig.4, "S407: Each of the at least one second device receives the task sent by the first device, executes the received task, and sends an execution result of the executed task to the first device." (i.e., the second device/device 5 executes the received task.)).
However, Pan does not disclose the first task information comprising
Grainger discloses the first task information comprising (paragraph [0058], Fig.7, "Mobile device 100 can receive (702) a request to perform a task when mobile device 100 is located in a geographic region. The request can be associated with an application program (e.g., location based application program 508) that is downloaded from a server, copied from a storage device connected to mobile device 100, or created on mobile device 100. The geographic region can be configured on mobile device 100, or on the server from which the application program is downloaded." (i.e., receiving a request that is associated with a location.)).
Pan and Grainger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Grainger to perform the task within a given location in order to have the device the device saves power thus increasing the duration of the device battery (Grainger, paragraph [0007], “The multi-tier geofence detection techniques can be implemented to achieve the following exemplary advantages. On a mobile device, a baseband subsystem can consume less power than an application subsystem. Multi-tier geofence detection can be achieved in the baseband subsystem until participation of the application subsystem is needed. The "as needed" approach allows the application subsystem to be set to a power-saving mode until the mobile device is sufficiently close to the geofence, thus saving battery power.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Pan further discloses sending, by the first communication apparatus, a first feedback information to the second communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information comprises at least one of: an execution result information of the task (paragraph [0128], Fig.4, "S408: The first device receives an execution result of a task sent by the at least one second device, and feeds back the execution result of the task sent by the at least one second device and an execution result of executing the another task by the first device to the application that distributes the to-be-executed AI task group in S401. After S408 is performed, the process ends." (i.e., the second device/device sends a executing result. Other limitation were given no patentable weight as the claim recites "at least one of")).
Regarding Claim 3, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Pan further discloses an execution requirement of the task, wherein the execution requirement comprises at least one of: (paragraph [0124], "a reliability requirement of another task locally executed by the first device is higher than a reliability requirement of a task executed by the second device." (i.e., this states there is a reliability requirement that needs to be executed by the second device.)).
Regarding Claim 6, Pan discloses An information processing method, comprising: determining, by a second communication apparatus (par.118, first device), a first task information about a first task to be executed (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." and paragraph [0118], "S406: The first device sends the task in the to-be-executed AI task group to each of the selected at least one second device," (i.e., the first device determining the AI task that needs to be executed.)),
the first task information comprising a first task identifier of the first task (paragraph [0077], "the device 5 records information (for example, identification information of the device 1) of the device 1 in a collaborative computing table of the device 5," and paragraph [0078], "The collaborative computing table of the device 5 is a table maintained (including created and/or updated) by the device 5 to manage information of the collaborative computing device of the device 5. The collaborative computing table of the device 5 may include identification information of the collaborative computing device of the device 5, information of an idle computing resource of each collaborative computing device, and the like." and paragraph [0105], "If the AI task group includes one AI task, the AI task may be divided into at least two subtasks." and paragraph [0106], “information distributed by the application may further include identification information of each of the plurality of subtasks.” (i.e., each task is broken into subtask and distributes the subtask by the first device to other device in order to perform the task and then receive the task back see paragraph [0129].)),
the first task comprising at least one of: an artificial intelligence (AI) task, (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." (i.e., the task is an AI task.));
and sending, by the second communication apparatus, the first task information to a first communication apparatus (par.126, second device) (paragraph [0126], Fig.4, "S407: Each of the at least one second device receives the task sent by the first device, executes the received task, and sends an execution result of the executed task to the first device." (i.e., the first device sends the task to be executed by the second device.)).
However, Pan does not disclose the first task information comprising
Grainger discloses the first task information comprising (paragraph [0058], Fig.7, "Mobile device 100 can receive (702) a request to perform a task when mobile device 100 is located in a geographic region. The request can be associated with an application program (e.g., location based application program 508) that is downloaded from a server, copied from a storage device connected to mobile device 100, or created on mobile device 100. The geographic region can be configured on mobile device 100, or on the server from which the application program is downloaded." (i.e., receiving a request that is associated with a location.)).
Pan and Grainger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Grainger to perform the task within a given location in order to have the device the device saves power thus increasing the duration of the device battery (Grainger, paragraph [0007], “The multi-tier geofence detection techniques can be implemented to achieve the following exemplary advantages. On a mobile device, a baseband subsystem can consume less power than an application subsystem. Multi-tier geofence detection can be achieved in the baseband subsystem until participation of the application subsystem is needed. The "as needed" approach allows the application subsystem to be set to a power-saving mode until the mobile device is sufficiently close to the geofence, thus saving battery power.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 6.
Pan further discloses receiving, by the second communication apparatus, a first feedback information from the first communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information comprises at least one of: an execution indication information indicating whether execution of the first task has been completed (paragraph [0128], Fig.4, "S408: The first device receives an execution result of a task sent by the at least one second device, and feeds back the execution result of the task sent by the at least one second device and an execution result of executing the another task by the first device to the application that distributes the to-be-executed AI task group in S401. After S408 is performed, the process ends." (i.e., the second device/device sends an executing result. Other limitation was given no patentable weight as the claim recites "at least one of")).
Regarding Claim 8, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 6.
Pan further discloses wherein the first task information further comprises at least one of: an execution requirement of the task, wherein the execution requirement comprises at least one of: (paragraph [0124], "a reliability requirement of another task locally executed by the first device is higher than a reliability requirement of a task executed by the second device." (i.e., this states there is a reliability requirement that needs to be executed by the second device.)).
Regarding Claim 11, Pan discloses a communication apparatus (par.118, second device or Par.77, device 5), comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the memory, the at least one processor configured, upon execution of the instructions, to perform the following steps:
receiving a first task information about a task to be executed and that is from a second communication apparatus (par.118, first device or par.77, device 1) (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." and paragraph [0118], "S406: The first device sends the task in the to-be-executed AI task group to each of the selected at least one second device," (i.e., the first device sends AI task to be executed by the second device.)),
the first task information comprising a task identifier of the task (paragraph [0077], "the device 5 records information (for example, identification information of the device 1) of the device 1 in a collaborative computing table of the device 5," and paragraph [0078], "The collaborative computing table of the device 5 is a table maintained (including created and/or updated) by the device 5 to manage information of the collaborative computing device of the device 5. The collaborative computing table of the device 5 may include identification information of the collaborative computing device of the device 5, information of an idle computing resource of each collaborative computing device, and the like." and paragraph [0106], “information distributed by the application may further include identification information of each of the plurality of subtasks.” (i.e., each task is broken into subtask and distributes the subtask by the first device to other device in order to perform the task and then receive the task back see paragraph [0129].)),
the task comprising at least one of: an artificial intelligence (AI) task, or a sensing task (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." (i.e., the task is an AI task.));
and causing the task to be executed based on the first task information (paragraph [0126], Fig.4, "S407: Each of the at least one second device receives the task sent by the first device, executes the received task, and sends an execution result of the executed task to the first device." (i.e., the second device/device 5 executes the received task.)).
However, Pan does not disclose the first task information comprising
Grainger discloses the first task information comprising (paragraph [0058], Fig.7, "Mobile device 100 can receive (702) a request to perform a task when mobile device 100 is located in a geographic region. The request can be associated with an application program (e.g., location based application program 508) that is downloaded from a server, copied from a storage device connected to mobile device 100, or created on mobile device 100. The geographic region can be configured on mobile device 100, or on the server from which the application program is downloaded." (i.e., receiving a request that is associated with a location.)).
Pan and Grainger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Grainger to perform the task within a given location in order to have the device the device saves power thus increasing the duration of the device battery (Grainger, paragraph [0007], “The multi-tier geofence detection techniques can be implemented to achieve the following exemplary advantages. On a mobile device, a baseband subsystem can consume less power than an application subsystem. Multi-tier geofence detection can be achieved in the baseband subsystem until participation of the application subsystem is needed. The "as needed" approach allows the application subsystem to be set to a power-saving mode until the mobile device is sufficiently close to the geofence, thus saving battery power.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 11.
Pan further discloses wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: send a first feedback information to the second communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information comprises at least one of: an execution result information of the task (paragraph [0128], Fig.4, "S408: The first device receives an execution result of a task sent by the at least one second device, and feeds back the execution result of the task sent by the at least one second device and an execution result of executing the another task by the first device to the application that distributes the to-be-executed AI task group in S401. After S408 is performed, the process ends." (i.e., the second device/device sends a executing result. Other limitation were given no patentable weight as the claim recites "at least one of")).
Regarding Claim 13, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 11.
Pan further discloses wherein the first task information further comprises at least one of the following: a reliability requirement (paragraph [0124], "a reliability requirement of another task locally executed by the first device is higher than a reliability requirement of a task executed by the second device." (i.e., this states there is a reliability requirement that needs to be executed by the second device.)).
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1) in further view of Byon (US-20220122039-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, Pan in view of Grainger do not disclose stopping, by the first communication apparatus, processing of the task or deleting the task when the first communication apparatus is outside an execution range indicated by the geographical range information; and sending, by the first communication apparatus, a notification message to the second communication apparatus, wherein the notification message indicates at least one of: the first communication apparatus is already outside the execution range, the first communication apparatus has stopped the processing of the task, or the first communication apparatus has deleted the task.
Byon discloses stopping, by the first communication apparatus, processing of the task (paragraph [0144], Fig.6, "may proceed to step 618, where it may perform a responsive action, such as attempting to retry the failed task at a second time. In some embodiments, computing device 402 may attempt to retry the task according to a designated number of re-attempts for a task before proceeding to another step (e.g., step 620)." (i.e., failed task is reading as the task has been stopped processing.));
and sending, by the first communication apparatus, a notification message to the second communication apparatus (paragraph [0145], Fig.6, "At step 620, computing device 402 may transmit failure data, which may be determined by computing device 402, to a failure queue, which may be maintained at another device. For example, failure data may be transmitted to a failure information device (e.g., a manager device 406)." (i.e., failure data is being transmitting is reading as notification is being send.)),
wherein the notification message indicates at least one of: the first communication apparatus has stopped the processing of the task (paragraph [0145], Fig.6, "At step 620, computing device 402 may transmit failure data, which may be determined by computing device 402, to a failure queue, which may be maintained at another device. For example, failure data may be transmitted to a failure information device (e.g., a manager device 406)." (i.e., sending failure data is reading on sending the processing of the task has been stopped. Other limitations were given no patentable weight because the claim recites “or”)).
Pan in view of Grainger and Byon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both having a system performing a task provided by another device. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Byon as there was a need to provide feedback when there is an error detected when performing the given task in order to provide feedback and reduce strain on computing resources (Byon, paragraph [0003], “Some current systems also do not determine intermediate request statuses and provide these to customers, which could assuage customer concerns and reduce the number of inquiries and complaints placed by customers on other systems, which create further strain on computing resources.” and paragraph [0004], “Therefore, there is a need for improved methods and systems for asynchronously handling client requests while dynamically detecting and responding to errors and pinpointing request status details for providing to client devices.”).
Regarding Claim 9, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1) in further view of XU (CN-109992387-B, English translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, Pan in view of Grainger do not disclose wherein the first task information further comprises a device identification of a third communication apparatus, and the causing, by the first communication apparatus based on the first task information, the task to be executed comprises: sending, by the first communication apparatus, the first task information to the third communication apparatus to cause the task to be executed by the third communication apparatus.
XU discloses wherein the first task information further comprises a device identification of a third communication apparatus (Fig.4B:420) (paragraph [0090], Fig.4B, "When the device corresponding to the target address is a device outside the cellular network, for example, the user end device 420 shown in fig. 4b, one user end device in the cellular network where the user end device 410 having the communication task is located may be used as the device 430 corresponding to the first target address, the communication task may be transmitted to the device 430 corresponding to the first target address by using the above steps S210 to S240…" (i.e., The figures can be found in the original CN-109992387-B. Fig.4B discloses of the task being to a first UE 430 and that task is then being forwarded to another UE 420.)),
and the causing, by the first communication apparatus based on the first task information, the task to be executed comprises: ending, by the first communication apparatus, the first task information to the third communication apparatus to cause the task to be executed by the third communication apparatus (paragraph [0090], Fig.4B, "…then the base station may communicate with the cellular network where the device corresponding to the target address is located based on the internet 460, the television network 470, the communication satellite 450 or the communication drone 480, and then the communication task may be transmitted to the user end device or the access device in the cellular network where the device corresponding to the target address is located, and the communication task may be transmitted to the device 420 corresponding to the target address by using the above steps S210 to S240." (i.e., See above for explanation.)).
Pan in view of Grainger and XU are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of XU in order to send tasks to other device in order to further help with assisting with a task and reduce processing usage thus saving battery life (XU, paragraph [0004], “The embodiment of the invention aims to provide a terminal cooperative task processing method, a terminal cooperative task processing device and electronic equipment, so as to assist access equipment to perform task processing and reduce the load of the access equipment. The specific technical scheme is as follows:”).
Regarding Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1) in further view of Bruni (US-20180252542-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 8.
Pan further discloses determining, by the second communication apparatus, a second task information about a second task to be executed, wherein the second task information comprises a second task identifier of the second task (paragraph [0121], Fig.4, "Before S406 is performed, the method may further include: dividing, by the first device, the to-be-executed AI task into a plurality of subtasks." and paragraph [0129], "For example, the first device may combine, according to a sequence of subtasks of the to-be-executed AI task, an execution result that is of a subtask and that is fed back by the at least one second device with an execution result of a subtask that is locally executed. For example, it is assumed that subtasks of the to-be-executed AI task are subtasks 1 to 5. The subtask 1 and the subtask 3 are locally executed, the subtask 2 is executed on one second device, and the subtasks 4 and 5 are executed on another second device." (i.e., Fig.4 shows the device 1 sends the subtasks to a plurality of devices 2-4 to perform the subtask and combines the subtasks if they complete it.)),
and the function identifier (paragraph [0121], Fig., "Before S406 is performed, the method may further include: dividing, by the first device, the to-be-executed AI task into a plurality of subtasks." and paragraph [0106], “information distributed by the application may further include identification information of each of the plurality of subtasks.” (i.e., each task is broken into subtask and distributes the subtask by the first device to other device in order to perform the task and then receive the task back see paragraph [0129].)),
and the second task comprises at least one of: an artificial intelligence AI task (paragraph [0129], "For example, the first device may combine, according to a sequence of subtasks of the to-be-executed AI task, an execution result that is of a subtask and that is fed back by the at least one second device with an execution result of a subtask that is locally executed.");
sending, by the second communication apparatus, the second task information to a fourth communication apparatus (paragraph [0126], Fig.4, "S407: Each of the at least one second device receives the task sent by the first device, executes the received task, and sends an execution result of the executed task to the first device." (i.e., the first device sends the task to be executed by the second device.)).
Grainger further discloses a geographical range information of the second task (paragraph [0023], "Likewise, multiple tasks can be configured to be performed when mobile device 100 is located in a single geographic region 104. Each geographic region 104 can be located in multiple countries or location areas." and paragraph [0050], "A task can be associated (602) with a geographic region." and paragraph [0058], Fig.7, "Mobile device 100 can receive (702) a request to perform a task when mobile device 100 is located in a geographic region. The request can be associated with an application program (e.g., location based application program 508) that is downloaded from a server, copied from a storage device connected to mobile device 100, or created on mobile device 100. The geographic region can be configured on mobile device 100, or on the server from which the application program is downloaded." (i.e., receiving a request that is associated with a location. Each task can be located in different locations.)).
However, Pan in view of Grainger do not explicitly disclose receiving, by the second communication apparatus, the first feedback information from the first communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information indicates that the first task information is successfully accepted; and receiving, by the second communication apparatus, a third feedback information from the fourth communication apparatus, wherein the third feedback information indicates that the second task information is unsuccessfully accepted.
Bruni discloses receiving, by the second communication apparatus (par.53, Fig.1:104), the first feedback information from the first communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information indicates that the first task information is successfully accepted (paragraph [0053], Fig.1, "The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive (208) the task list from the remotely accessible server (102) for acceptance or rejection. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) may prompt the respective service providers associated therewith for their acceptance or rejection of the task list. This may include displaying particulars of the task list, for example the number of tasks, the estimated total distance, timing constraints (i.e. a deadline by which the task list must be completed), etc. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive user input (e.g. in in the form of activation of an ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ graphical component) from their respective service providers indicating their acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, of the task list and may transmit (210) an acceptance or rejection notification to the remotely accessible server (102)." (i.e., Fig.1 shows a plurality of UE receiving a task, and each device can send an acceptance of the task or a rejection.));
and receiving, by the second communication apparatus, a third feedback information from the fourth communication apparatus (par.53, Fig.1:106), wherein the third feedback information indicates that the second task information is unsuccessfully accepted (paragraph [0053], Fig.1, "The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive (208) the task list from the remotely accessible server (102) for acceptance or rejection. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) may prompt the respective service providers associated therewith for their acceptance or rejection of the task list. This may include displaying particulars of the task list, for example the number of tasks, the estimated total distance, timing constraints (i.e. a deadline by which the task list must be completed), etc. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive user input (e.g. in in the form of activation of an ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ graphical component) from their respective service providers indicating their acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, of the task list and may transmit (210) an acceptance or rejection notification to the remotely accessible server (102)." (i.e., Fig.1 shows a plurality of UE receiving a task, and each device can send an acceptance of the task or a rejection.)).
Pan in view of Grainger and Bruni are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Bruni sending a notification of accepting or rejecting performing the task as Bruni discloses there is a need for monitoring and managing task completion and alleviates these problems and this would allow feedback on the types of task not able to perform thus creating a dynamic relationship with the devices (Bruni, paragraph [0008], “There is accordingly a need for a technological platform that enables monitoring and managing task completion by an on-demand service provider that alleviates these and/or other problems.”).
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1) in further view of LI (CN-104408552-A).
Regarding Claim 16, Pan in view of Grainger discloses all the limitation of claim 11.
Pan further discloses and the first task comprises at least one of: an artificial intelligence AI task (paragraph [0110], Fig.4, "S403: The first device determines whether the available computing resource of the first device is greater than or equal to the computing resource required by the to-be-executed AI task group." and paragraph [0112], "If no, it indicates that the first device cannot complete a task in the to-be-executed AI task group within a preset time period by using the available computing resource of the first device. Therefore, the task needs to be collaboratively executed by the another device, and S404 is performed." (i.e., the task is an AI task.)).
Grainger further discloses and a geographical range information of the first task (paragraph [0058], Fig.7, "Mobile device 100 can receive (702) a request to perform a task when mobile device 100 is located in a geographic region. The request can be associated with an application program (e.g., location based application program 508) that is downloaded from a server, copied from a storage device connected to mobile device 100, or created on mobile device 100. The geographic region can be configured on mobile device 100, or on the server from which the application program is downloaded." (i.e., receiving a request that is associated with a location.)).
However, Pan in view of Grainger do not explicitly disclose in combination with claim 11 wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: determine a first task information about a first task to be executed, wherein the first task information comprises a first task identifier of the first task and send the first task information to a first communication apparatus.
LI discloses wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: determine a first task information about a first task to be executed (paragraph [0152], "step 601, a first working node issues a task to a management node, wherein the task carries a task identifier and a node identifier of the first working node, so that a second working node obtains the task from the management node," and paragraph [0156], Fig.6, "Task information, including: identifying a task; task input definition including input parameter identification and value," (i.e., the first node sends task to the management node, the management node is now determining the task with the information to then send to the second device.)),
and send the first task information to a first communication apparatus (par.178, Second working node) (paragraph [0152], "step 601, a first working node issues a task to a management node," and paragraph [0178], Fig.7, "step 701, a second working node acquires a task from a management node," (i.e., its known in the art to receive a task and send the task to another device.)).
Pan in view of Grainger and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Li in order to improve the flexibility of receiving a task from a node and assigning the task to other nodes (Li, paragraph [0008], “Embodiments of the present invention provide a method, an apparatus, and a system for task cooperative processing, which do not require a management node to perform task assignment, and can simply implement flexible task cooperative processing between working nodes.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li discloses all the limitation of claim 16.
Li further discloses wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: receive a first feedback information from the first communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information comprises at least one of: an execution progress information of the first task (paragraph [0167], "In a first mode, the task further carries a report submission policy, where the report submission policy is used to instruct the second working node to send a task monitoring report message to the management node, the first working node receives the task monitoring report message sent by the management node," (i.e., reporting progress.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li discloses all the limitation of claim 16.
Li further discloses wherein the first task information further comprises at least one of the following: wherein the time range information comprises at least one of: (paragraph [0155], "The task monitoring strategy information comprises the following steps: reporting task execution states, wherein the execution states comprise normal, abnormal, in-execution, completed, abandoned and the like; reporting task execution metrics, wherein the execution metric data comprises executed time, completion time and the like; report sending strategy, including sending report when task starts, sending report according to appointed period when task executes, sending report when task ends," (i.e., the task information has a request the second working node to report execution time, completion time.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1) in further view of Byon (US-20220122039-A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li discloses all the limitation of claim 16.
However, Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li do not disclose wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: receive a notification message from the first communication apparatus, wherein the notification message indicates at least one of: the first communication apparatus is already outside an execution range indicated by the geographical range information, the first communication apparatus has stopped processing of the first task.
Byon disclose wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: receive a notification message from the first communication apparatus (paragraph [0144], Fig.6, "may proceed to step 618, where it may perform a responsive action, such as attempting to retry the failed task at a second time. In some embodiments, computing device 402 may attempt to retry the task according to a designated number of re-attempts for a task before proceeding to another step (e.g., step 620)." and paragraph [0145], Fig.6, "At step 620, computing device 402 may transmit failure data, which may be determined by computing device 402, to a failure queue, which may be maintained at another device. For example, failure data may be transmitted to a failure information device (e.g., a manager device 406)." (i.e., failed task is reading as the task has been stopped processing. Failure data is being transmitting is reading as notification is being send.)),
wherein the notification message indicates at least one of: the first communication apparatus has stopped processing of the first task (paragraph [0145], Fig.6, "At step 620, computing device 402 may transmit failure data, which may be determined by computing device 402, to a failure queue, which may be maintained at another device. For example, failure data may be transmitted to a failure information device (e.g., a manager device 406)." (i.e., sending failure data is reading on sending the processing of the task has been stopped.)).
Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li and Byon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both having a system performing a task provided by another device. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Byon as there was a need to provide feedback when there is an error detected when performing the given task in order to provide feedback and reduce strain on computing resources (Byon, paragraph [0003], “Some current systems also do not determine intermediate request statuses and provide these to customers, which could assuage customer concerns and reduce the number of inquiries and complaints placed by customers on other systems, which create further strain on computing resources.” and paragraph [0004], “Therefore, there is a need for improved methods and systems for asynchronously handling client requests while dynamically detecting and responding to errors and pinpointing request status details for providing to client devices.”).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (WO-2020001161-A1, Examiner is mapping to US-20210117231-A1 as it has the English translation of WIPO, but using the WIPO publishing date as prior art) in view of Grainger (US 20140045521 A1) in further view of LI (CN-104408552-A) in further view of Bruni (US-20180252542-A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li discloses all the limitation of claim 18.
Pan further discloses wherein the instructions are further executed by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to: determine a second task information about a second task to be executed, wherein the second task information comprises a second task identifier of the second task (paragraph [0121], Fig.4, "Before S406 is performed, the method may further include: dividing, by the first device, the to-be-executed AI task into a plurality of subtasks." and paragraph [0129], "For example, the first device may combine, according to a sequence of subtasks of the to-be-executed AI task, an execution result that is of a subtask and that is fed back by the at least one second device with an execution result of a subtask that is locally executed. For example, it is assumed that subtasks of the to-be-executed AI task are subtasks 1 to 5. The subtask 1 and the subtask 3 are locally executed, the subtask 2 is executed on one second device, and the subtasks 4 and 5 are executed on another second device." (i.e., Fig.4 shows the device 1 sends the subtasks to a plurality of devices 2-4 to perform the subtask and combines the subtasks if they complete it.)),
and the function identifier (paragraph [0121], Fig., "Before S406 is performed, the method may further include: dividing, by the first device, the to-be-executed AI task into a plurality of subtasks."),
the second task comprising at least one of: an artificial intelligence AI task (paragraph [0129], "For example, the first device may combine, according to a sequence of subtasks of the to-be-executed AI task, an execution result that is of a subtask and that is fed back by the at least one second device with an execution result of a subtask that is locally executed."),
send the second task information to a fourth communication apparatus (paragraph [0126], Fig.4, "S407: Each of the at least one second device receives the task sent by the first device, executes the received task, and sends an execution result of the executed task to the first device." (i.e., the first device sends the task to be executed by the second device.)).
However, Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li do not explicitly disclose receive the first feedback information from the first communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information indicates that the first task information is successfully accepted; and receive third feedback information from the fourth communication apparatus, wherein the third feedback information indicates that the second task information is unsuccessfully accepted.
Bruni discloses receive the first feedback information from the first communication apparatus, wherein the first feedback information indicates that the first task information is successfully accepted (paragraph [0053], Fig.1, "The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive (208) the task list from the remotely accessible server (102) for acceptance or rejection. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) may prompt the respective service providers associated therewith for their acceptance or rejection of the task list. This may include displaying particulars of the task list, for example the number of tasks, the estimated total distance, timing constraints (i.e. a deadline by which the task list must be completed), etc. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive user input (e.g. in in the form of activation of an ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ graphical component) from their respective service providers indicating their acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, of the task list and may transmit (210) an acceptance or rejection notification to the remotely accessible server (102)." (i.e., Fig.1 shows a plurality of UE receiving a task, and each device can send an acceptance of the task or a rejection.));
and receive third feedback information from the fourth communication apparatus, wherein the third feedback information indicates that the second task information is unsuccessfully accepted (paragraph [0053], Fig.1, "The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive (208) the task list from the remotely accessible server (102) for acceptance or rejection. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) may prompt the respective service providers associated therewith for their acceptance or rejection of the task list. This may include displaying particulars of the task list, for example the number of tasks, the estimated total distance, timing constraints (i.e. a deadline by which the task list must be completed), etc. The mobile communication devices (104, 106) of the identified service providers (114, 116) may receive user input (e.g. in in the form of activation of an ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ graphical component) from their respective service providers indicating their acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, of the task list and may transmit (210) an acceptance or rejection notification to the remotely accessible server (102)." (i.e., Fig.1 shows a plurality of UE receiving a task, and each device can send an acceptance of the task or a rejection.)).
Pan in view of Grainger in further view of Li and Bruni are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. 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 modified Pan to implement the method of Bruni sending a notification of accepting or rejecting performing the task as Bruni discloses there is a need for monitoring and managing task completion and alleviates these problems and this would allow feedback on the types of task not able to perform thus creating a dynamic relationship with the devices (Bruni, paragraph [0008], “There is accordingly a need for a technological platform that enables monitoring and managing task completion by an on-demand service provider that alleviates these and/or other problems.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights