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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed August 5, 2024. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 8/5/2024 and 8/6/2024 have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,205. See the claim correspondence table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application are fully anticipated by the patent. The only difference is that the present claims are much broader because they do not recite specific limitations as the patent. Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to broaden the claims in order to seek broader patent protection.
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,058,205
21. A method comprising: receiving, by a cloud server, a signal from a client device, wherein the signal represents a request for a resource; calculating, by the cloud server, a distance between the cloud server and the client device; and determining, by the cloud server, an approximate location of the client device based on the distance.
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising: selecting, by the cloud server, an edge server that is within a predetermined distance of the approximate location; and providing the resource to the client device using the edge server.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration.
24. The method of claim 22, wherein the cloud server is one of a plurality of cloud servers that is nearest to the client device.
25. The method of claim 21, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by the cloud server; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance.
26. The method of claim 25, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received.
27. The method of claim 21, wherein the resource is a real-time video conferencing application.
28. A cloud server comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors and comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the cloud server to perform operations comprising: receiving a signal from a client device, wherein the signal represents a request for a resource; calculating a distance between the cloud server and the client device; and determining an approximate location of the client device based on the distance.
29. The cloud server of claim 28, further comprising: selecting, by the cloud server, an edge server that is within a predetermined distance of the approximate location; and providing the resource to the client device using the edge server.
30. The cloud server of claim 28, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration.
31. The cloud server of claim 28, wherein the cloud server is one of a plurality of cloud servers that is nearest to the client device.
32. The cloud server of claim 28, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by the cloud server; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance.
33. The cloud server of claim 32, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received.
34. The cloud server of claim 28, wherein the resource is a real-time video conferencing application.
35. One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a signal from a client device, wherein the signal represents a request for a resource; calculating a distance between a cloud server and the client device; and determining an approximate location of the client device based on the distance.
36. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 35, the operations further comprising: selecting, by the cloud server, an edge server that is within a predetermined distance of the approximate location; and providing the resource to the client device using the edge server.
37. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 35, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration.
38. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 35, wherein the cloud server is one of a plurality of cloud servers that is nearest to the client device.
39. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 35, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by the cloud server; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance.
40. The one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media of claim 39, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received.
1. A method for associating a client device with an edge server, comprising: receiving, by each of a plurality of cloud servers, a signal from the client device, requesting a resource provided by the plurality of cloud servers; calculating, by each cloud server, a distance between each cloud server and the client device; determining, by at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, an approximate location of the client device based on the calculated distance; identifying, by the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, using the approximate location, one or more edge servers that are within a predetermined distance from the client device; and communicating, by the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, the identified one or more edge servers to the client device.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers is a cloud server that is nearest to the client device.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by each of the plurality of cloud servers; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the resource is a real-time video conferencing application.
11. A system, comprising: a client device; one or more edge servers; and a plurality of cloud servers, each of the plurality of cloud servers comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more of the processors that stores instructions operable when executed by the one or more of the processors to cause the system to perform a method comprising: receiving, by each of the plurality of cloud servers, a signal from the client device, requesting a resource provided by the plurality of cloud servers; calculating, by each cloud server, a distance between each cloud server and the client device; determining, by at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, an approximate location of the client device based on the calculated distance; identifying, by the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, using the approximate location, one or more edge servers that are within a predetermined distance from the client device; and communicating, by the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, the identified one or more edge servers to the client device.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers is a cloud server that is nearest to the client device.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by each of the plurality of cloud servers; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the resource is a real-time video conferencing application.
20. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, by each of a plurality of cloud servers, a signal from a client device, requesting a resource provided by the plurality of cloud servers; calculate, by each cloud server, a distance between each cloud server and the client device; determine, by at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, an approximate location of the client device based on the calculated distance; identifying, by the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, using the approximate location, one or more edge servers that are within a predetermined distance from the client device; and communicate, by the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers, the identified one or more edge servers to the client device.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one of the plurality of cloud servers is a cloud server that is nearest to the client device.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by each of the plurality of cloud servers; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 29, 31-33, 35, 36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomason (US 10986173).
Regarding claim 21, Thomason teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a cloud server, a signal from a client device, wherein the signal represents a request for a resource (figure 2: cloud platform receives HTTP request from edge device);
calculating, by the cloud server, a distance between the cloud server and the client device (col. 11, line 57 to col. 12, line 3: the geolocation of an edge device is determined based on WI-FI. Geolocation based on WI-FI makes use of received signal strength indication (RSSI), where signals detected by an edge device from nearby access points refer to a database of WI-FI networks. The database is operable to store location information for each uniquely identified access point. Using signal strength to determine distance, RSSI determines where an edge device is located in relation to known access points. In yet another embodiment, another form of WI-FI geolocation is used, wireless fingerprinting. Wireless fingerprinting uses profiles of given places that are based on the pattern of WI-FI signals located there. The fingerprint is created and stored in a database.); and
determining, by the cloud server, an approximate location of the client device based on the distance (abstract - locating server nodes for edge devices using latency-based georouting).
Regarding claim 22, Thomason teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising: selecting, by the cloud server, an edge server that is within a predetermined distance of the approximate location; and providing the resource to the client device using the edge server (col. 7, lines 16-20: the method further includes selecting the nearest node based on a geolocation for the at least one edge device and/or a latency value corresponding to the at least one edge device.).
Regarding claim 24, Thomason teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the cloud server is one of a plurality of cloud servers that is nearest to the client device (abstract - A query result is returned indicating a nearest node from the plurality of server nodes. The HTTP request is responded to with a unique hypertext markup language (HTML) web page, and the HTTP request is executed using the nearest node.).
Regarding claim 25, Thomason teaches the method of claim 21, wherein calculating the distance further comprises: determining an amount of time the signal takes to be received by the cloud server; and using a known distance the signal can traverse in the amount of time to determine the distance (col. 13, lines 5-10: Network latency is measured either as one-way (the time from the source sending a packet to the destination receiving it), or round-trip delay time (the one-way latency from source to destination plus the one-way latency from the destination back to the source).).
Regarding claim 26, Thomason teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the known distance is calculated based on a distance light travels in a predetermined medium in the amount of time the signal takes to be received (col. 13, lines 11-19: latency refers to latency in fiber optics. In relation to fiber optics, latency is a function of the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters/second in a vacuum. This equates to a latency of 3.33 μs (microseconds) for every kilometer of path length. The index of refraction of most fiber optic cables is around 1.5, meaning that light travels 1.5 times as fast in a vacuum as it does in the cable. This works out to around 5.0 μs of latency for every kilometer.).
Claims 28, 29 and 31-33 are similar to claims 21, 22, and 24-26, respectively. The claims are different in that they recite a cloud server comprising one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors and comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the cloud server to perform operations as cited by claims 21, 22, and 24-26. Nevertheless, the processor and the computer-readable non-transitory storage media are taught by Thomason (see figure 8).
Claims 35, 36 and 38-40 are similar to claims 21, 22, and 24-26, respectively. The claims are different in that they recite one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media. Nevertheless, the computer-readable non-transitory storage media is taught by Thomason (see figure 8).
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.
Claim(s) 23, 30 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason in view of Vercalli et al., (US 20250007730, hereinafter referred to as “Vercalli”).
Regarding claim 23, Thomason does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration. In an analogous art, Vercalli teaches wherein the approximate location of the client device is determined by trilateration ([0036] An identification embodiment uses the elapsed time(s) and a presently available trilateration technique to calculate a physical location of the client system. Trilateration, or multilateration, is the use of distances for determining the unknown physical location of a point.). Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine location of the client device by using trilateration because trilateration allows multiple distance estimates from several known server locations into a client coordinate, thus allowing the selection of any nearby edge server, thus making selection more efficient.
Claim 30 is similar to claim 23, but from a cloud server perspective. Nevertheless, it is taught by Thomason under the same rationale.
Claim 37 is non-transitory storage medium version of claim 23, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 27 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason in view of Lucas et al., (US 20100125626, hereinafter referred to as “Lucas”).
Regarding claim 27, Thomason does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein the resource is a real-time video conferencing application. In an analogous art, Lucas teaches wherein the resource is a real-time video conferencing application ([0029] FIG. 5 illustrates another exemplary method of delivering content to a client system, such as client system 112. The content can be media content, such as an audio-video presentation, delivered using a control protocol such as Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). At 502, the client system can request a presentation description from a server, such as server 120.). Before the effective filing date of the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the edge server selection technique to a real-time video conferencing application because such applications are widely recognized as latency-sensitive.
Claim 34 is similar to claim 27, but from a cloud server perspective. Nevertheless, it is taught by Thomason under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Casey et al., US 2021/0136178, teaches receiving, from a mobile computing device, first location data for the mobile computing device at a first time; receiving, from the mobile computing device, second location data for the mobile computing device at a second time; and based on the first location data and the second location data, determining a direction vector for the mobile computing device.
Li et al, US 2010/0153540, teaches a client probing area landmark server, measures response delays, and provides results to coordination server, which in turn provides a list of additional city landmarks to client.
Van De Houten et al., US 2012/023308, teaches receiving a request to obtain network performance data for a plurality of target nodes, determining geo-locations of the plurality of target nodes; based on the geo-locations, and determining a set of the plurality of target nodes that are within a specified proximity radius.
Wang et al., US 20220107848 - providing an edge service for a terminal by using a resource of an edge resource cluster in a cloud computing system.
Puente Pestana et al., US 20200099742 – edge cloud broker for selecting edge cloud resource to a UE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA N BOUTAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3908. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at (571) 270-3037. 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.
ALINA BOUTAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2458
/ALINA A BOUTAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458