DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 11/12/2024.
Claims 1-16, 19-20, 31, and 51 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 31, and 51 are independent claims.
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from China Application No. CN202210565256.1, filed on 5/23/2022.
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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzpatric et al., US Patent Publication No. 20160307132, filed on 7/8/2016 (hereinafter Fitzpatric).
As for Independent Claim 1, Fitzpatric discloses an electronic apparatus for wireless communications, comprising
at least one processor (processor); and
at least one memory including computer program code (computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions), where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured (computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions), with the at least one processor, to cause (a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention) the electronic apparatus to at least:
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0031] discloses “FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram, 300, of components of computing device 110 in accordance with an illustrative embodiment of the present invention. It should be appreciated that FIG. 3 provides only an illustration of one implementation and does not imply any limitations with regard to the environments in which different embodiments may be implemented. Many modifications to the depicted environment may be made.”
Paragraph [0039] discloses “The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product. The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
511
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determine, based on a task request received from user equipment located within a service range of the electronic apparatus (task optimization program 120 receives a list of tasks from a user of user communication device 140), at least one target task to be initiated for the user equipment (each task in the list of tasks from user communication device 140 includes an associated type of location or a user specified location where a given task is to be completed), wherein each target task is performed according to a corresponding work mode (mode of transportation), and the task request comprises a task list having the at least one target task and a list indicating a priority of the work mode (returns a prioritized list of tasks to the mobile device)(Task optimization program 120 selects the permutation with the best rating and generates an optimized list of the tasks, based on that permutation, and returns that optimized list to user communication device 140).
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0018] discloses “In step 205, task optimization program 120 receives a list of tasks from a user of user communication device 140. The list of tasks includes one or more tasks; wherein each task can include a description of an activity to be completed, a location of an activity to be completed, or a combination of the two. Typically, each task in the list of tasks from user communication device 140 includes an associated type of location or a user specified location where a given task is to be completed. For example, a task “get a haircut” is associated, by the user with salon A.”
Paragraph [0016] discloses “It should also be noted that certain information can facilitate one mode of transportation while inhibiting another or may do neither. For example, a snow fall of fifteen inches inhibits automobile and walking modes of transit while facilitating modes of transit that require snow, e.g., a snowmobile and skiing. However, the user of the mobile device is utilizing an underground train system that is not affected by the snow. As such, the algorithm considers available modes of transit, which can be specified by the user of the mobile device, when determining an estimated travel time.”
Paragraph [0012] discloses “In this embodiment, task optimization program 120 is a software program which receives a list of tasks from a mobile device of a user, e.g., communication device 140, and returns a prioritized list of tasks to the mobile device. Task optimization program 120 generates permutations of the tasks included in the list of tasks (i.e., sequences of the tasks) and determines a rating for each permutation. Task optimization program 120 selects the permutation with the best rating and generates an optimized list of the tasks, based on that permutation, and returns that optimized list to user communication device 140. “)
PNG
media_image2.png
601
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
Each target task is divided into one or more task segments (the list of tasks includes tasks A, B and C. The six possible permutations for those tasks are 1) A, B, C; 2) A, C, B; 3) B, A, C; 4) B, C, A; 5) C, A, B; and 6) C, B, A.) according to time and/or geographic area (The total amount of estimated travel time is the amount of time that is required for the user to travel to all the task locations); and
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0028] discloses “To determine whether the tasks are in an optimal organization, task optimization program 120 generates a number of permutations of those tasks, i.e., possible sequences of those tasks, and assigns ratings to each possible sequence. For example, the list of tasks includes tasks A, B and C. The six possible permutations for those tasks are 1) A, B, C; 2) A, C, B; 3) B, A, C; 4) B, C, A; 5) C, A, B; and 6) C, B, A. The rating for each of the respective permutations is based, in this embodiment, on a total amount of estimated travel time, which is based on the external information received. The total amount of estimated travel time is the amount of time that is required for the user to travel to all the task locations, in the order specified by the sequence. In other embodiments, a subset of the tasks included in the sequence is used when determining a rating.”)
in each task segment, a sub-target task comprised in the target task and corresponding to the task segment is performed (The total amount of estimated travel time is the amount of time that is required for the user to travel to all the task locations, in the order specified by the sequence), and the sub-target task is performed according to a corresponding sub-work mode (mode of transportation) comprised in the work mode for performing the target task (the algorithm takes into account available modes of transit, which can be specified by the user of the mobile device, when determining an estimated travel time).
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0028] discloses “The total amount of estimated travel time is the amount of time that is required for the user to travel to all the task locations, in the order specified by the sequence. In other embodiments, a subset of the tasks included in the sequence is used when determining a rating. For example, a user only has three hours of time available in which to complete tasks and the total estimated time to complete all the tasks in the list of tasks is seven hours, excluding travel time. As such, the user selects an option of task optimization program 120 that limits the rating assessment to only the first three tasks in a given sequence of tasks and adds a time limit, as criteria for determining sequence ratings, of three hours (i.e., a threshold). The first three tasks in sequence 1 have an estimated total travel time of forty five minutes and the tasks themselves are estimated to require a total of two hours to complete. The other possible sequences, 2-5, exceed the three hour time limit, and as such receive a lower rating than sequence 1. The sequence which receives the highest rating is determined to be the optimal organization of those tasks. As such, task optimization program 120 determines whether the sequence of the tasks included in the list of tasks match the sequence of tasks in the optimal organization of those tasks, i.e., the sequence with the highest rating. If task optimization program 120 determines that there is a match between the two sequences, then task optimization program 120 determines that the list of tasks is optimally organized.”
Paragraph [0016] discloses “It should also be noted that certain information can facilitate one mode of transportation while inhibiting another or may do neither. For example, a snow fall of fifteen inches inhibits automobile and walking modes of transit while facilitating modes of transit that require snow, e.g., a snowmobile and skiing. However, the user of the mobile device is utilizing an underground train system that is not affected by the snow. As such, the algorithm considers available modes of transit, which can be specified by the user of the mobile device, when determining an estimated travel time.“)
As for claim 3, the limitations of parent claim 2 has been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
in each task segment, a sub-target task corresponding to the task segment (The total amount of estimated travel time is the amount of time that is required for the user to travel to all the task locations, in the order specified by the sequence) is suspended (may inhibit that form of transit) or switched if any sub-work mode (mode of transportation) is interrupted (indicates airplane flights have been delayed by one hour at a particular airport).
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0015] discloses “An applicable social media posting related to the first location that indicates a degree of congestion for a mode of transit can be, for example, a message posted on a social media site that indicates airplane flights have been delayed by one hour at a particular airport, which may inhibit that form of transit.”
Paragraph [0016] discloses “It should also be noted that certain information can facilitate one mode of transportation while inhibiting another or may do neither. For example, a snow fall of fifteen inches inhibits automobile and walking modes of transit while facilitating modes of transit that require snow, e.g., a snowmobile and skiing. However, the user of the mobile device is utilizing an underground train system that is not affected by the snow. As such, the algorithm considers available modes of transit, which can be specified by the user of the mobile device, when determining an estimated travel time.“
Paragraph [0028] discloses “The total amount of estimated travel time is the amount of time that is required for the user to travel to all the task locations, in the order specified by the sequence. In other embodiments, a subset of the tasks included in the sequence is used when determining a rating.)
As for claim 4, the limitations of parent claim 2 has been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The target task comprises a mobility (wireless)(Wide area network(WAN)) target task (A computer identifies a first location that is associated with a first task) in which the user equipment (support communications between computing device 110, user communication device 140, task optimization program 120, and search engine 130, in accordance with a desired embodiment of the present invention) reaches a predetermined geographical location (the first information includes one or more of: (a) a street address that corresponds to the location associated with the first task) and/or a motionless target task (mode of transportation that is available based, at least in part, the second location) in which the user equipment (user communication device 140) works within a predetermined area (Wide area network(WAN)).
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0009] discloses “In an embodiment, task optimization program 120, and search engine 130 are stored on computing device 110. However, in other embodiments, task optimization program 120, and search engine 130 are stored externally and accessed through a communication network such as network 150. The communication network can be, for example, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, or a combination of the two, and may include wired, wireless, fiber optic or any other connection known in the art. In general, the communication network can be any combination of connections and protocols that will support communications between computing device 110, user communication device 140, task optimization program 120, and search engine 130, in accordance with a desired embodiment of the present invention.”
Paragraph [0003] discloses “Embodiments of the present invention disclose a method, computer program product, and system for prioritizing tasks. A computer identifies a first location that is associated with a first task, based, at least in part, on a first information, wherein (i) the first task is included in a first list of tasks, (ii) the first information is retrieved from a digital data source, and (iii) the first information includes one or more of: (a) a street address that corresponds to the location associated with the first task, (b) a review of a business related to the completion of the first task (c) a global positioning system (GPS) coordinate of the location associated with the first task, or (d) a mode of transportation that is available based, at least in part, the second location. The computer determines a first travel time from a second location to the first location based, at least in part, on a second information, wherein (i) the second location is associated with a mobile device that supplied the first list of tasks, (ii) the second information includes data that indicates an amount of travel time that is associated with a route from the second location to the first location, (iii) the second information is retrieved from the digital data source, and (iv) wherein the second information includes one or more of: a) a degree of congestion for a mode of transit; b) a measured pattern of movement associated with a mode of transit; c) a pattern of movement for a mode of transit that is predicted to exist; d) a queue length for a mode of transit at the first location; e) a queue length for a mode of transit that is included in the route from the second location to the first location; f) a social media posting related to the first location that indicates a degree of congestion for a mode of transit; g) a current weather condition for the first location; or h) a forecasted weather condition for the first location.”)
As for claim 5, the limitations of parent claim 4 has been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
the predetermined geographical location comprises one or more geographical locations (received list of tasks, based on the task locations associated with the respective tasks) arranged sequentially (task optimization program 120 evaluates the associated task locations in a sequential order in which they appear in a sequence of task locations that has the highest rating) and/or by priority (certain tasks may have higher priority for completion than other tasks and as a result their associated task locations are listed higher in the list of task locations).
(Fitzpatrick paragraph [0020] discloses “Task optimization program 120 determines whether a task, included in the list of tasks, has been specified, i.e., selected by the user, in decision step 215. If the user has made such a specification, i.e., a task was selected, (decision step 215, yes branch), then task optimization program 120 proceeds to step 225. In general, the user may specify any task included in the list of tasks received from user communication device 140, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. If, however, the user has not made such a specification, i.e., a task was not selected, (decision step 215, no branch), then in step 220, task optimization program 120 individually evaluates the tasks, included in the received list of tasks, based on the task locations associated with the respective tasks. To evaluate the tasks, task optimization program 120 determines and compares the distances, i.e., the amount of travel time required, from each respective task location to the location of user communication device 140. In general, a shorter distance is preferable and as such the task locations are organized into a list of task locations based on which is task location is closest to user communication device 140. However, in certain embodiments, additional criteria are applied. For example, certain tasks may have higher priority for completion than other tasks and as a result their associated task locations are listed higher in the list of task locations. Based on this evaluation, task optimization program 120 selects a task location, corresponding to a task included in the received list of tasks, e.g., the task location that is listed first in the list of tasks. To select a task, task optimization program 120 evaluates the associated task locations in a sequential order in which they appear in a sequence of task locations that has the highest rating. For further details regarding ratings of task location sequences and the selection of such a sequence for use by task optimization program 120, see step 235.”)
Claims 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al., US Patent Publication No. 20200344647, filed on 7/15/2020 (hereinafter Zhu).
As for independent claim 51, Zhu discloses an electronic apparatus for wireless communications, comprising
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured (The processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory), with the at least one processor, to cause the electronic apparatus to at least:
(Zhu paragraph [0051] discloses “According to a ninth aspect, a communications apparatus is provided, and the apparatus includes a transceiver (which may include a transmitter and a receiver), a memory, and a processor. The transceiver, the memory, and the processor communicate with each other through an internal connection path. The memory is configured to store an instruction. The processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory, to control the receiver to receive a signal and control the transmitter to send a signal, so that the apparatus performs the method according to any one of the first aspect or the possible implementations of the first aspect.”)
send a task request to a network-side device serving the electronic apparatus, for the network-side device to determine at least one target task to be initiated for the electronic apparatus (a gNB finds that the location of the UE changes, the gNB sends a switching request to the AMF to request that a current PDU session needs to be switched),
wherein each target task is performed according to a corresponding work mode (For another example, when an SSC mode corresponding to a PDU session is an SSC mode 3, the network device sets, based on a session establishment time, a priority of a subsequently established PDU session to be higher than that of a previously established PDU session), and the task request comprises a task list having the at least one target task and a list indicating a priority of the work mode (For another example, when an SSC mode corresponding to a PDU session is an SSC mode 3, the network device sets, based on a session establishment time, a priority of a subsequently established PDU session to be higher than that of a previously established PDU session).
(Zhu paragraph [0233] discloses “S1108. When the UE is in a data connected state, and a gNB finds that the location of the UE changes, the gNB sends a switching request to the AMF to request that a current PDU session needs to be switched.”
Paragraph [0109] discloses “Manner 2: The network device is a user data management network element, for example, may be the foregoing HSS+UDM; or may be an access and mobility management function device. The network device receives assistance information that is of a first PDU session in the established PDU sessions and that is sent by a first control plane function network element, and the network device determines switching indication information of the first PDU session based on the assistance information. The assistance information may be the foregoing assistance information. Herein, an example in which the switching indication information indicates a switching priority of a PDU session is used for description. For example, the network device may determine a higher priority for a corresponding PDU session with a higher S-NSSAI priority and determine a lower priority for a corresponding PDU session with a lower S-NSSAI priority. For another example, when an SSC mode corresponding to a PDU session is an SSC mode 3, the network device sets, based on a session establishment time, a priority of a subsequently established PDU session to be higher than that of a previously established PDU session. For another example, the network device may set a priority of a PDU session according to a locally configured policy and based on an IP address version corresponding to the session. For example, the locally configured policy is preferably switching to a PDU session whose IP version is v6. For another example, the network device may determine a priority of a first PDU session based on a service type of the first PDU session and set a higher priority for a PDU session whose service type is voice.”)
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.
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 6-10, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatric in view of Chaudhry et al., US Patent Application No. 20120110584, filed on 10/29/2010 (hereinafter Chaudhry)
As for claim 6, the limitations of parent claim 2 has been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The target task has a corresponding backup task (In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa),
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0014] discloses “Search engine 130 interacts with task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa.”
Fitzpatric discloses information includes detail that change an estimated travel time related to a specific route between first and second locations. Broadest reasonable interpretation indicates the change of information forcing the user to take an alternate path to reach the second location.)
Fitzpatric does not appear to explicitly disclose
The target task has a corresponding backup task, and the backup task is a task to be performed in place of the target task when the target task is unable to be performed.
However, Chaudhry discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The target task has a corresponding backup task (backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities), and the backup task is a task to be performed in place of the target task when the target task is unable to be performed (each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0007] discloses “In accordance with aspects of the invention, a system creates backup tasks for a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. Each scheduled task is associated with a target probability for execution. Each scheduled task is executable by a first cluster element and a second cluster element. In one example, the first cluster element comprises a machine and the second cluster element includes a rack that houses the machine. The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group. The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus for task management to perform target task with backup task. Further benefit to combine to enhance the apparatus to provide seamless service without interruption to the user.
As for claim 7, the limitations of parent claim 6 has been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The at least one memory and the computer program code are configured (computer-readable storage media that is capable of storing program instructions), with the at least one processor (computer processors ), (list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa).
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0034] discloses “Task optimization program 120 and search engine 130 are stored in persistent storage 308 for execution and/or access by one or more of the respective computer processors 304 via one or more memory 306. In this embodiment, persistent storage 308 includes a magnetic hard disk drive. Alternatively, or in addition to a magnetic hard disk drive, persistent storage 308 can include a solid state hard drive, a semiconductor storage device, read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), flash memory, or any other computer-readable storage media that is capable of storing program instructions or digital information.”
Paragraph [0014] discloses “Search engine 130 interacts with task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa.”)
Fitzpatric does not appear to explicitly disclose
to cause the electronic apparatus to generate the backup task based on a backup task request sent by the user equipment.
However, Chaudhry discloses an electronic apparatus wherein
to cause the electronic apparatus to generate the backup task based on a backup task (The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group) request sent by the user equipment.
(Chaudhry paragraph [0007] discloses “In accordance with aspects of the invention, a system creates backup tasks for a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. Each scheduled task is associated with a target probability for execution. Each scheduled task is executable by a first cluster element and a second cluster element. In one example, the first cluster element comprises a machine and the second cluster element includes a rack that houses the machine. The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group. The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus capable of taking a request from the user equipment to create a backup task. Further benefit to combine is to have an apparatus with backup task creation based on user equipment on demand to save system resources.
As for claim 8, the limitations of parent claim 7 has been discussed above. Fitzpatric discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
(task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa) accepts
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0014] discloses “Search engine 130 interacts with task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa.”)
Fitzpatric does not appear to explicitly disclose
The backup task request comprises information regarding whether the user equipment accepts to determine the backup task by the electronic apparatus.
However, Chaudhry discloses an electronic apparatus wherein
The backup task request comprises information regarding whether the user equipment accepts to determine the backup task by the electronic apparatus (Based on the monitored information, the system determines if the existing backup tasks in each class still match the requirements of the tasks in the class).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0079] discloses “Based on the monitored information, the system determines if the existing backup tasks in each class still match the requirements of the tasks in the class. This may be performed periodically after an accrual of the changing events or may be triggered by a changing event such as a job leaving a class. If the backup tasks in a class do not match the requirement of a particular scheduled task in that class, the system may determine that the scheduled task is not backed up and perform modifications on the existing backup tasks or adding new backup tasks to the class.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus capable of taking a request from the user equipment to create a backup task. Further benefit to combine is to have an apparatus with backup task creation based on user equipment on demand with backup system requirements to save system resources.
As for claim 9, the limitations of parent claim 8 has been discussed above. The electronic apparatus according to claim 8 discloses wherein
(with task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa)
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0014] discloses “Search engine 130 interacts with task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa.”)
Fitzpatric does not appear to explicitly disclose
The backup task request further comprises information regarding whether the user equipment continues performing the target task.
However, Chaudhry discloses an electronic apparatus wherein
The backup task request further comprises information regarding whether the user equipment continues performing the target task (Based on the monitored information, the system determines if the existing backup tasks in each class still match the requirements of the tasks in the class. This may be performed periodically after an accrual of the changing events or may be triggered by a changing event such as a job leaving a class).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0079] discloses “Based on the monitored information, the system determines if the existing backup tasks in each class still match the requirements of the tasks in the class. This may be performed periodically after an accrual of the changing events or may be triggered by a changing event such as a job leaving a class. If the backup tasks in a class do not match the requirement of a particular scheduled task in that class, the system may determine that the scheduled task is not backed up and perform modifications on the existing backup tasks or adding new backup tasks to the class.”
Broadest reasonable interpretation is for the backup task provide service for the user equipment without interruption.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus capable of taking a request from the user equipment to continue to perform the target task without interruption. Further benefit to combine is to have an apparatus with backup task to support the user equipment seamlessly without interruption while executing the target task.
As for claim 10, the limitations of parent claim 8 has been discussed above. the electronic apparatus according to claim 8 discloses wherein
The backup task request further(provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa) regarding the backup task.
(Fitzpatric paragraph [0014] discloses “Search engine 130 interacts with task optimization program 120 by providing information related to each task within the list of tasks received from user communication device 140. In some scenarios the provided information includes details that change an estimated travel time, which often relates to a specific route that can be used from a first location to a second location or vice versa.”)
Fitzpatric does not appear to explicitly disclose
The backup task request further comprises a redundancy requirement regarding the backup task.
However, Chaudhry discloses an electronic apparatus wherein
The backup task request further comprises a redundancy requirement regarding the backup task (considering other criteria, such as scheduling policy or preference of machines to execute the job/task).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0085] discloses “In addition to the resource requirements, the risk management system may also classify the tasks by considering other criteria, such as scheduling policy or preference of machines to execute the job/task. These criteria may come from other cluster management entities such as a job scheduler or a resource manager as illustrated in FIG. 1, or alternatively, from the job-related information carried by each job. Thus, each class is a set of jobs/tasks that are similar in at least the resource requirements and other aspects.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus capable of taking a request from the user equipment to continue to perform the target task without interruption. Further benefit to combine is to have an apparatus with backup task including a redundancy requirement to support the user equipment seamlessly without interruption.
As for claim 14, the limitations of parent claim 6 has been discussed above. Chaudry discloses the apparatus wherein
The backup task comprises sub-backup tasks respectively corresponding to sub-target tasks in the target task (The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0007] discloses “In accordance with aspects of the invention, a system creates backup tasks for a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. Each scheduled task is associated with a target probability for execution. Each scheduled task is executable by a first cluster element and a second cluster element. In one example, the first cluster element comprises a machine and the second cluster element includes a rack that houses the machine. The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group. The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus with capability to have backup task for each of the target task. Further benefit to combine is to enhance the service and prevent interruption of the service with a backup task.
As for claim 15, the limitations of parent claim 14 has been discussed above. Chaudhry discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The at least one memory and the computer program code (the instructions may be stored as computer code on the computer-readable medium) are configured, with the at least one processor (computing nodes, processors, memory, databases, network bandwidth, I/O devices, etc. Heterogeneous application jobs/tasks are allocated with resources and scheduled to run in series or in parallel on different machines by cluster management infrastructure such as resource managers and job schedulers), to cause the electronic apparatus to perform resource allocation for each sub-target task and a sub-backup task corresponding to the sub-target task (application jobs/tasks are allocated with resources)( The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group
(Chaudhry paragraph [0004] discloses “Computing power required by applications has been increasing at a tremendous rate. By aggregating the power of widely distributed resources, computer clusters permit organizations to boost their processing power through linked computers and a collection of shared resources such as computing nodes, processors, memory, databases, network bandwidth, I/O devices, etc. Heterogeneous application jobs/tasks are allocated with resources and scheduled to run in series or in parallel on different machines by cluster management infrastructure such as resource managers and job schedulers.”
Paragraph [0061] discloses “Instructions 208 may be any set of instructions to be executed directly (such as binary machine code) or indirectly (such as scripts from any programming language) by the processor. For example, the instructions may be stored as computer code on the computer-readable medium.”
Paragraph [0007] discloses “In accordance with aspects of the invention, a system creates backup tasks for a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. Each scheduled task is associated with a target probability for execution. Each scheduled task is executable by a first cluster element and a second cluster element. In one example, the first cluster element comprises a machine and the second cluster element includes a rack that houses the machine. The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group. The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus with capability to allocate resource for backup and target task. Further benefit to combine is to enhance the service and prevent interruption of the service while managing available resource to ensure backup task are capable of running when activated.
As for claim 16, the limitations of parent claim 15 has been discussed above. Chaudhry discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the electronic apparatus to:
(Chaudhry paragraph [0004] discloses “Computing power required by applications has been increasing at a tremendous rate. By aggregating the power of widely distributed resources, computer clusters permit organizations to boost their processing power through linked computers and a collection of shared resources such as computing nodes, processors, memory, databases, network bandwidth, I/O devices, etc. Heterogeneous application jobs/tasks are allocated with resources and scheduled to run in series or in parallel on different machines by cluster management infrastructure such as resource managers and job schedulers.”
Paragraph [0061] discloses “Instructions 208 may be any set of instructions to be executed directly (such as binary machine code) or indirectly (such as scripts from any programming language) by the processor. For example, the instructions may be stored as computer code on the computer-readable medium.”)
reserve resources for performing all sub-backup tasks, and at each time point of being going to enter each task segment, book a resource for performing a sub-target task corresponding to the task segment, or
at a time point of being going to enter an earliest task segment which is the earliest in time, book a resource for performing a sub-target task corresponding to the earliest task segment (allocating backup tasks to a plurality of tasks), and reserve resources for performing a sub-backup task corresponding to the earliest task segment and a sub-backup task corresponding to a next task segment (The method comprises classifying the plurality of scheduled tasks in groups based on one or more resource requirements associated with each task, each group containing at least one of the scheduled tasks), and
(Chaudhry paragraph [0008] discloses “In accordance with one embodiment, a computer-implemented method is executable by a processor for allocating backup tasks to a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. The method comprises classifying the plurality of scheduled tasks in groups based on one or more resource requirements associated with each task, each group containing at least one of the scheduled tasks; determining, for at least a respective one of the groups, a number of backup tasks necessary to guarantee that the scheduled tasks of the respective group satisfy a target probability for execution; and generating, with the processor, the backup tasks based on the determination, the generated backup tasks being identical, and each backup task in the respective group being configured to replace any scheduled task in the respective group.”
Examiner choose to map “at a time point of being going to enter an earliest task segment..”)
at a time point of being going to enter each task segment other than the earliest task segment, book a resource for performing a sub-target task corresponding to the task segment, and reserve a resource for performing a sub-backup task corresponding to a next task segment,
or
at each time point of being going to enter each task segment, book a resource for performing a sub-target task corresponding to the task segment (The method comprises classifying the plurality of scheduled tasks in groups based on one or more resource requirements associated with each task, each group containing at least one of the scheduled tasks), and reserve a resource for performing a sub-backup task corresponding to the task segment (allocating backup tasks to a plurality of tasks).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0008] discloses “In accordance with one embodiment, a computer-implemented method is executable by a processor for allocating backup tasks to a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. The method comprises classifying the plurality of scheduled tasks in groups based on one or more resource requirements associated with each task, each group containing at least one of the scheduled tasks; determining, for at least a respective one of the groups, a number of backup tasks necessary to guarantee that the scheduled tasks of the respective group satisfy a target probability for execution; and generating, with the processor, the backup tasks based on the determination, the generated backup tasks being identical, and each backup task in the respective group being configured to replace any scheduled task in the respective group.”
Examiner choose to map “at each time point of being going to enter each task segment, book a resource”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chaudhry with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus with capability to allocate resource for backup and target task. Further benefit to combine is to enhance the service and prevent interruption of the service while managing available resource to ensure backup task are capable of running when activated.
As for claim 19, the limitations of parent claim 16 has been discussed above. Chaudhry discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The at least one memory and the computer program code (the instructions may be stored as computer code on the computer-readable medium) are configured, with the at least one processor (computing nodes, processors, memory, databases, network bandwidth, I/O devices, etc.), to cause the electronic apparatus to:
(Chaudhry paragraph [0004] discloses “Computing power required by applications has been increasing at a tremendous rate. By aggregating the power of widely distributed resources, computer clusters permit organizations to boost their processing power through linked computers and a collection of shared resources such as computing nodes, processors, memory, databases, network bandwidth, I/O devices, etc. Heterogeneous application jobs/tasks are allocated with resources and scheduled to run in series or in parallel on different machines by cluster management infrastructure such as resource managers and job schedulers.”
Paragraph [0061] discloses “Instructions 208 may be any set of instructions to be executed directly (such as binary machine code) or indirectly (such as scripts from any programming language) by the processor. For example, the instructions may be stored as computer code on the computer-readable medium.”)
After the user equipment enters a next task segment from a sub-target task in a current task segment, release a resource booked (unnecessary backup resources may be returned to the cluster in a timely manner to improve the utilization efficiency of the cluster resources) for performing a sub-target task corresponding to the task segment and release a resource reserved for performing a sub-backup task corresponding to the task segment (the system may remove a backup task that is still valid but has become unnecessary due to its completion or leaving the cluster).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0080] discloses “In one example, the system may remove a backup task that is still valid but has become unnecessary due to its completion or leaving the cluster (e.g., returning to the user application with the completion results). In another example, the system may leave some extra backup tasks to avoid the possibility of growing the class again in the next round of classification or optimization of the tasks. In this way, the system efficiency is increased with the reduced amount of deletion or creation. In this situation, the number or the criteria of extra backup tasks to be left for each class may be predetermined.”
Paragraph [0081] discloses “In the optimization process, the system desirably removes any backup tasks that have become invalid due to events like machine failures. As such, unnecessary backup resources may be returned to the cluster in a timely manner to improve the utilization efficiency of the cluster resources.”)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatric in view of Chaudhry in view of Robert et al., US Patent Publication No. 20180373562, effectively file on 12/9/2016 (hereinafter Robert).
As for claim 20, the limitations of parent claim 6 has been discussed above. Chaudhry discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The backup task (The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group)
(Chaudhry paragraph [0007] discloses “In accordance with aspects of the invention, a system creates backup tasks for a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. Each scheduled task is associated with a target probability for execution. Each scheduled task is executable by a first cluster element and a second cluster element. In one example, the first cluster element comprises a machine and the second cluster element includes a rack that houses the machine. The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group. The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group.”)
Chaudhry does not appear to explicitly disclose
The backup task is restored to the target task when a predetermined restoration condition is satisfied.
However, Robert discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The backup task is restored to the target task when a predetermined restoration condition is satisfied (switch from the first task to the second task and then back to the first task once the second task was complete).
(Robert paragraph [0036] discloses “Having determined both the estimates (in block 312) they are compared to the deadline (in block 314) to determine whether both tasks (i.e. both the first and second GPU tasks) can be completed prior to the deadline for the second GPU task. If both tasks can be completed before the deadline (‘Yes’ in block 314), no context switch occurs and the first GPU task is allowed to complete (block 308) before the second GPU task is executed (block 310). This eliminates what would otherwise be an unnecessary context switch to switch from the first task to the second task and then back to the first task once the second task is complete. If, however, both tasks cannot be completed before the deadline (‘No’ in block 314), a context switch does occur (which interrupts the execution of the first GPU task) and the second GPU tasks is executed (block 326). Upon completion of the second (higher priority) GPU task (and provided a further higher priority GPU task has not become runnable) a second context switch occurs so that the first GPU task can be completed (block 328).”
Robert discloses a method to eliminate what would otherwise be an unnecessary context switch to switch from the first task to the second task and then back to the first task once the second task was complete.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Robert with Fitzpatric, and with Chaudhry for the benefit of having an apparatus capable to create backup task for a target task and to switch context between backup and target task. Further benefit to combine to have a service with backup task to handle interruption in the network without redundant context switching.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatric in view of Chaudhry in view of Shah et al., US Patent Application No. 20170116581, filed on 10/25/2016 (hereinafter Shah).
As for claim 11, the limitations of parent claim 8 has been discussed above. Chaudhry discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The target task is switched to a corresponding backup task (The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group)
(Chaudhry paragraph [0007] discloses “In accordance with aspects of the invention, a system creates backup tasks for a plurality of tasks scheduled to run in a computer cluster. Each scheduled task is associated with a target probability for execution. Each scheduled task is executable by a first cluster element and a second cluster element. In one example, the first cluster element comprises a machine and the second cluster element includes a rack that houses the machine. The system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task. The system may determine, for each group, the number of backup tasks to be generated based on target probabilities of the scheduled tasks in the group. The system is configured to generate the backup tasks based on the determination, where each backup task in a given group is identical and can be employed to backup/replace any scheduled task in the group.”)
Chaudhry does not appear to explicitly disclose
The target task is switched to a corresponding backup task when a predetermined switching trigger condition and/or predetermined switching trigger time is satisfied.
However, Shah discloses an apparatus wherein
The target task is switched to a corresponding backup task (Automatically replace a task with another task (backup plan i.e. Plan B)) when a predetermined switching trigger condition (task completion status or weather or traffic) and/or predetermined switching trigger time is satisfied (completion status).
(Shah paragraph [0071] discloses “Automatically replace a task with another task (backup plan i.e. Plan B) based on one or more criteria defined by one or more participants such as task completion status or weather or traffic.”
Paragraph [0072] discloses “Provide real time status information for more than two parties where status is location, completion state, contact information, etc.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shah with Chaudhry, and with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus capable of switching to a backup task based on a trigger condition. Further benefit to combine is to maintain seamless service by initiating the backup task base on predetermined trigger condition.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatric in view of Chaudhry in view of Shah in view of Xiao et al., US Patent Application No. 20170192849, effectively filed on 12/3/2015 (hereinafter Xiao).
As for claim 12, the limitations of parent claim 11 has been discussed above. Shah discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The predetermined switching trigger condition comprises at least one of (location info of responsible party relative to initiation of task), and a timing trigger (certain date/time).
(Shah paragraph [0207] discloses “Automated alerts driven by Location/GPS info such as location info of responsible party relative to initiation of task.”
Paragraph [0212] discloses “Ability to have backup task if task/set of tasks are not completed by certain date/time or there is an inability to complete a task.”)
Shah does not appear to explicitly disclose
The predetermined switching trigger condition comprises at least one of a network resource threshold.
However, Chaudry discloses an apparatus wherein
The predetermined switching trigger condition comprises at least one of a network resource threshold (the resource requirements for a selected one of the scheduled tasks is a memory range requirement).
(Chaudhry paragraph [0010] discloses “In another example, each scheduled task of the respective group is linked with a job, and each job is associated with the target probability for execution of its linked task. In a further example, each group contains tasks with identical resource requirements. In yet another example, one of the resource requirements for a selected one of the scheduled tasks is a memory range requirement.”)
Shah does not appear to explicitly disclose
The predetermined switching trigger condition comprises at least one of a notification message trigger.
However, Shah discloses an apparatus wherein
The predetermined switching trigger condition comprises at least one of a notification message trigger (The intermediate equipment determines when the replication task starts and sends a notification to the local site 10 to trigger the replication task).
(Xiao paragraph [0063] discloses “As depicted in FIG. 7, in STEP 1: the replication program 128 determines that a replication task is triggered. The replication task may be triggered by a timer, or triggered manually, which is not limited herein. In some cases, there may be an intermediate equipment between the local site 10 and the remote site 20. The intermediate equipment determines when the replication task starts and sends a notification to the local site 10 to trigger the replication task.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xiao with Shah with Chaudhry, and with Fitzpatric for the benefit of having an apparatus with capability to take different triggers to switch from target to backup task. Further benefit to combine is having an apparatus that provide seamless service with enhance triggers to switch between tasks.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzpatric in view of Chaudhry in view of Shah in view of Lavallee et al., US Patent Publication No. 20160070696, filed on 9/5/2014 (hereinafter Lavallee).
As for claim 13, the limitations of parent claim 11 has been discussed above. Shah discloses the electronic apparatus wherein
The predetermined switching trigger time (certain date/time) comprises (an inability to complete a task).
(Shah paragraph [0212] discloses “Ability to have backup task if task/set of tasks are not completed by certain date/time or there is an inability to complete a task.”)
Shah does not appear to explicitly disclose
The predetermined switching trigger time comprises pre-switching of performing switching before the target task being unable to be performed,
However, Lavallee discloses an apparatus wherein
The predetermined switching trigger time comprises pre-switching of performing switching before the target task being unable to be performed (more rules-based task switching rules for determining one or more secondary tasks, the secondary tasks comprising tasks that cannot be activated while one or more primary tasks are activated and tasks that can be activated while one or more primary tasks are activated),
(Lavallee paragraph [0009] discloses “One or more aspects of the disclosure provide for a method that may include activating, by a computing device and with an application comprising a plurality of tasks, a primary task in response to receiving a first natural language command of one or more words, the computing device being configurable with one or more rules-based task switching rules for determining one or more secondary tasks, the secondary tasks comprising tasks that cannot be activated while one or more primary tasks are activated and tasks that can be activated while one or more primary tasks are activated; receiving, while the primary task is activated, one or more ambiguous natural language commands; and determining at least one candidate task of the plurality of tasks for each of the one or more ambiguous natural language commands. The method may further include assigning a score to each of the candidate tasks using a statistical-based task switching model.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lavallee with Fitzpatric with Chaudhry, and with Shah for the benefit of having an apparatus that can switch to the backup task while target task is still active. Further benefit to combine is to make the apparatus capable of initiating the backup task prior to target task become faulty.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Hans, US Patent Publication No. 20190281492, effectively filed on 4/26/2019 (hereinafter Hans).
As for independent claim 31, Zhu discloses an electronic apparatus for wireless communications comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured (The processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory), with the at least one processor, to cause the electronic apparatus to at least:
(Zhu paragraph [0051] discloses “According to a ninth aspect, a communications apparatus is provided, and the apparatus includes a transceiver (which may include a transmitter and a receiver), a memory, and a processor. The transceiver, the memory, and the processor communicate with each other through an internal connection path. The memory is configured to store an instruction. The processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory, to control the receiver to receive a signal and control the transmitter to send a signal, so that the apparatus performs the method according to any one of the first aspect or the possible implementations of the first aspect.”)
trigger a request for processing a protocol data unit (PDU) session when user equipment located within a service range of the electronic apparatus is to switch from a current task to a to-be-switched task (a gNB finds that a location of the UE changes, the gNB sends a switching request to the AMF to request that a current PDU session needs to be switched), wherein (determining, by a network device based on switching indication information of protocol data unit PDU sessions established by a terminal in a first network, a target PDU session from the established PDU sessions, where all the established PDU sessions have a same data network name DNN; and sending, by the network device, session information of the target PDU session to a mobility management entity device in a second network).
(Zhu paragraph [0233] discloses “S1108. When the UE is in a data connected state, and a gNB finds that a location of the UE changes, the gNB sends a switching request to the AMF to request that a current PDU session needs to be switched.”
Paragraph [0007] discloses “According to a first aspect, a communication method is provided, including: determining, by a network device based on switching indication information of protocol data unit PDU sessions established by a terminal in a first network, a target PDU session from the established PDU sessions, where all the established PDU sessions have a same data network name DNN; and sending, by the network device, session information of the target PDU session to a mobility management entity device in a second network.”
Paragraph [0290] discloses “The processor 1710 is configured to determine, based on switching indication information of protocol data unit PDU sessions established by a terminal in a first network, a target PDU session from the established PDU sessions, where all the established PDU sessions have a same data network name DNN. The transceiver 1720 is configured to send session information of the target PDU session to a mobility management entity device in a second network.”)
Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein
A first QoS flow in a first PDU session corresponding to the current task is related to a second QoS flow in a second PDU session corresponding to the to-be-switched task.
However, Hans discloses an electronic apparatus wherein
A first QoS flow in a first PDU session corresponding to the current task is related to a second QoS flow in a second PDU session corresponding to the to-be-switched task (It could then be the UE that stores information about additional QoS for App 1 and that provides related information together with the PDU Session Establishment for App 2).
(Hans paragraph [0080] discloses “As a second alternative, QoS modification steps could also be initiated by the UE. It could then be the UE that stores information about additional QoS for App 1 and that provides related information together with the PDU Session Establishment for App 2 in FIG. 3, step 2. This information can be specifically adapted to the QoS requested by App 2, i.e. it could contain only those parts of the additional QoS of App 1 that are requested by App 2 in order to trigger the network to switch the respective PDU flow to the new PDU session.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Hans for the benefit of having an electronic apparatus to establish PDU session and a backup PDU session to be switched to in the near future. Further benefit to combine is to have an apparatus having backup PDU session with matching QoS flow to enable a faster switch since the target PDU session has the same QoS flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al., US Patent Publication No. 20240371280, effectively filed on 4/9/2021
Preconfigured or dynamically configured backup UAV UE that can step in for a failed or retiring UAV in the swarm [0004], [0054]-[0060]. A first replacement command tells the backup UAV which UAV is being replaced and provides context such as identity, location, flight path, swarm identity, or UE context [0005], [0073], [0110]. After the backup UAV acknowledges, a second replacement command is sent to the remaining swarm members so they can establish sidelink connections with the backup UAV using specified resources [0005], [0076], [0112]. The system then checks replacement success using sidelink establishment and measured conditions like location or SL-RSRP [0015]-[0019], [0103]-[0107], [0116].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)467-6390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/JOSEPH KHANH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights