Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024, 11/05/2024 and 04/07/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 12: they recite the “the computing device” in their limitations and lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites a “first computing device”, a “a plurality of computing devices” and “each computing device of the plurality of computing devices”. It is unclear which device is being referenced in each claim.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the computing device” in the limitation “send a second request from the computing device to the selected computing device…” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 20 recites “a plurality of computing devices” but does not introduce a singular computing device.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the respective parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In adhering to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process, machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101.
With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2. Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. In particular claim 1 recites:
“receiving, at a first computing device, a first request associated with a processing task; identifying a plurality of computing devices, wherein each computing device of the plurality of computing devices is remote from the first computing device and each computing device satisfies at least one criterion of a predetermined list of criteria;
determining a priority value for each computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the priority value is at least partially based on the predetermined list of criteria;
selecting one of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the selection is determined at least partially based on the priority value determined for each computing device;
sending a second request from the first computing device to the selected computing device via a wireless communication channel, the second request instructing the selected computing device to complete a portion of the processing task.”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite evaluating candidate devices according to predetermined criteria, assigning or determining respective priority values based on the criteria, and selecting a candidate according to the resulting priority values.
These limitations encompass functions that can reasonably be performed in the in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, including with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person provided with information identifying a plurality of available devices could review whether the devices satisfy predetermined criteria, assign or determine a respective priority or ranking based on those criteria and select one of the devices according to the resulting priority or ranking.
Accordingly, these limitations recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to the operation of the computing devices, a processor architecture, task scheduling, mechanism or a distributed processing algorithm. Rather the computing devices are used as tools for performing the claimed identification, priority determination and selection.
The limitation of receiving the first request merely gathers information initiating the selection process. Similarly, sending the second request via wireless communication channel merely transmits the result of the abstract selection to the selected computing device. Receiving and transmitting at a high level of generality constitute insignificant extra solution activity and do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the language that the second request “instructing the selected computing device to complete a portion of the processing task.” Does not recite any particular technical manner by which the selected computing device completes the selecting processing task. The limitation merely applies the result of the abstract device selection by transmitting an instruction to the selected device
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g), 2106.05(h), 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving the first request and sending the second request over a wireless communication channel amounts to generic receipt and transmission of information over a network. The courts have identified activities such as gathering, storing, retrieving, transmitting and displaying data as well understood routine and conventional computer activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claim merely receives a request, evaluates available devices according to criteria, determines respective priority values, selects a device according to those values and transmits a request containing the result of the selection to the selected device.
Accordingly, the generic computer components, generic network communication and a mere application of the abstract selection process. Claim 1 therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and is not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-11, 16 and 17 merely further define the criteria, information, evaluations or rankings used in the abstract device selection process. Claim 2 recites consent to participate, claim 3 preferred device or prior communication information, claims 4-5 geographic proximity and corresponding priority, claims 6-8 processing capability, thresholds and corresponding priority, claims 9-11 device state and device type, claim 16 first- and second-best priority rankings and claim 17 diving a processing task into portions. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations merely add further comparisons, evaluations, classifications, rankings or organization of information that can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, these claims add further mental processes and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 12-13 further recite assessing properties of a wireless communication channel and executing a ping test. Assessing the obtained information and using it to determine priority merely adds further analysis to the abstract selection process.
Claims 14, 15 and 18 further recite receiving data, sending another request when no response or a negative response is received and sending respective requests to multiple selected computing devices. These limitations merely add generic receiving and transmitting of information over a network and apply the result of the abstract device selection process is considered well understood routine and conventional computer activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two and do not amount to significant more. Therefore claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 19-20 recite substantially the same abstract functionally as claims 1. Therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Parker (US 20120254965 A1), hereafter Parker.
Regarding claim 1, Parker teaches:
A computer-implemented method of executing a distributed processing scheme, the method comprising: (Claim 1. A method for distributed computing, comprising:)
receiving, at a first computing device, a first request associated with a processing task. ([0069] The control scheme is configured, in one exemplary implementation, to provide distributed computing services to participating devices such as the device 10 or a desktop configuration. In operation, a device requests that a distributed computing project be processed by another device by sending a request 805 to the server 5.)
identifying a plurality of computing devices, wherein each computing device of the plurality of computing devices is remote from the first computing device and each computing device satisfies at least one criterion of a predetermined list of criteria. ([0062] The distributed computing functions module 306 manages distributed computing process by serving as a "master node." Available devices are assigned locations in the distributing computing tree. In operation, the distributed computing functions module 306 selects a particular device, i.e., a worker device, to process a computing project from among the available devices operating distributed computing services, configured to access a distributed data set, and connected to the network 20. [0070] The resource management module 53 monitors physical location of participating devices and operating states 815. The resource management module 53 identifies available devices to process the computing tasks 820. Availability may be dependent upon enabling criteria such as having a sufficient computing function or application for processing the computing task.)
determining a priority value for each computing device of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the priority value is at least partially based on the predetermined list of criteria. ([0070]The resource management module 53 determines a scoring metric for each of the available devices to determine which devices are best positioned to process the available task 825. The scoring metric is preferably based upon physical location of the available devices and at least one operating state associated with the corresponding device. In one embodiment, the scoring metric is based upon historical performance metrics associated with a device and historical performance metrics associated with physical locations. Availability and storage of user data and application information is additionally factored into the scoring metric.)
selecting one of the plurality of computing devices, wherein the selection is determined at least partially based on the priority value determined for each computing device. ([0071] The resource management module 53 selects from among a plurality of available devices associated with a highest scoring metric 830. Alternatively, the devices may be selected as described herein above using device location and at least one associated operating state of the device.)
sending a second request from the first computing device to the selected computing device via a wireless communication channel, the second request instructing the selected computing device to complete a portion of the processing task. [0071] The resource management module 53 sends the computing task to the selected devices 835 and monitors responses from the selected device for compliance with predetermined fault parameters 840. In an embodiment wherein devices may be configured to sub-divide tasks to devices proximately located, using, e.g., peer-to-peer communication capabilities, devices assigned tasks may further distribute and divide computing tasks.
Parker does not appear to explicitly teach that the disclosed selection are arranged as a predetermined list of criteria.
However, Parker expressly teaches selecting worker devices using multiple previously establish criteria, including physical location, operating state, available resources, proximity, participation preferences and past performance metrics. See Parker [0056-0057] [0062]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to organize Parker’s disclosed device selection criteria into a predetermined list of criteria for evaluating candidate computing devices. One would have been motivated to do so to provide an organized and consistent set of established criteria for determining device eligibility and selecting the device best suited to perform the computing task, consistent with Parker’s disclosed device selection process
Regarding claim 2, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device and each computing device of the plurality of computing devices have consented to be part of the distributed processing scheme. ([0059] User participation preferences may be selected by users of the distributing computing system. The user participation preferences are used by the availability module 304 as participation enabling criteria. If any criterion is not met the user's device will be unavailable to process computing projects and/or access data sent from other devices.)
Regarding claim 3, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether any of the plurality of computing devices is on a list of preferred devices, and/or determining whether any of the plurality of computing devices has successfully communicated with the first computing device previously, wherein the priority value is at least partially based on said determination. ([0056] The resource monitor module 302 additionally tracks and stores information associated with the physical location of the devices such as historical device reliability at the physical location, historical successful completion of assigned computing tasks for devices used at the physical location, and historical network disruption)
Regarding claim 4, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined list of criteria includes the following geographic criterion: a geographical location of the computing device is within a predetermined range of a geographical location of the first computing device. ([0058] Physical location of devices are used to select worker devices and assign computing tasks. Physical location is used to determine proximity to the requesting device user. Devices in closer proximity to the user are more likely to have the same network characteristics, more likely to be in or move into a "hot zone" such as a "wifi" area, thus increasing bandwidth and processing efficiency. In embodiments utilizing a score metric to select worker devices and construct distributed computing trees more desirable scores, e.g., higher scores, are assigned based on proximity to the requesting device while less desirable scores are assigned to devices operated further away.)
Regarding claim 5, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein determining the priority value for each computing device includes determining a contribution to the priority value based on the geographic criterion, wherein the computing device that is geographically closest to the first computing device will have the best contribution to the priority value. ([0058] In embodiments utilizing a score metric to select worker devices and construct distributed computing trees more desirable scores, e.g., higher scores, are assigned based on proximity to the requesting device while less desirable scores are assigned to devices operated further away.)
Regarding claim 6, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined list of criteria includes the following processor criterion: a current processing capability of the computing device exceeds a predetermined limit. ([0060] For example, one participation enabling criterion can be a minimum available threshold of available computational resources. If the user is utilizing computational resources so that less than the minimum available threshold remains, then the device would be unavailable for distributed computing projects and/or data access.)
Regarding claim 9, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined list of criteria includes: the computing device is in an active state or an available state. ([0054] The resource monitor module 302 monitors information associated with users of the distributed computing services such as device location and operating states of the device. Operating states of the devices can include information indicating whether the device is ON or OFF, an internal power supply level, available computational resources, signal strength, and connectivity to an external power source.)
Regarding claim 12, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the priority value for each computing device includes assessing one or more properties of the wireless communication channel between the first computing device and the computing device, wherein the priority value is at least partially based on an outcome of the assessment. ([0058] Physical location of devices are used to select worker devices and assign computing tasks. Physical location is used to determine proximity to the requesting device user. Devices in closer proximity to the user are more likely to have the same network characteristics, more likely to be in or move into a "hot zone" such as a "wifi" area, thus increasing bandwidth and processing efficiency. In embodiments utilizing a score metric to select worker devices and construct distributed computing trees more desirable scores, e.g., higher scores, are assigned based on proximity to the requesting device while less desirable scores are assigned to devices operated further away.)
Regarding claim 14, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the first computing device via the wireless communication channel, data corresponding to the portion of the processing task. ([0061] The distributed computing functions module 306 additionally tracks and manages device location in the distribution tree and tracks which device is performing master-type computing function requests and the devices assigned worker-type computing functions. The distributed computing functions module 306 receives results of the requested task by way of the network 20 after processing by the worker device. See also [0071])
Regarding claim 17, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: dividing the processing task into a plurality of portions. ([0061] The distributed computing functions module 306 utilizes devices identified by the availability module 304 as devices available for performing distributed computing tasks. The distributed computing functions module 306 via the resource management module 53 receives computational requests from a device via the distributed computing client 45 for processing and distribution over the network 20 utilizing a distributing computing tree. The distributed computing functions module 306 assigns and manages the distributive computing process including dividing computing projects into computing tasks and sub-tasks and monitoring responses from devices for compliance with predetermined fault parameters.)
Regarding claim 18, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising sending a respective request from the first computing device to two or more selected computing devices of the plurality of computing devices via a respective wireless communication channel, each request instructing the selected computing device to complete at least one respective portion of the processing task. ([0071] The resource management module 53 selects from among a plurality of available devices associated with a highest scoring metric 830. Alternatively, the devices may be selected as described herein above using device location and at least one associated operating state of the device. The resource management module 53 sends the computing task to the selected devices 835 and monitors responses from the selected device for compliance with predetermined fault parameters 840. In an embodiment wherein devices may be configured to sub-divide tasks to devices proximately located, using, e.g., peer-to-peer communication capabilities, devices assigned tasks may further distribute and divide computing tasks. After processing the task, the server 5 receives results of computing task from the selected device 845 and the resource management module 53 incorporates the results into the computing project 850.)
Regarding claims 19-20 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 20120254965 A1), in view of Arnold (US 20070143762 A1), hereafter Arnold.
Regarding claim 7, Parker does not appear to explicitly teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the predetermined limit is at least partially based on a processing capability of the first computing device; and/or wherein the predetermined limit is at least partially based on estimated or actual requirements of the portion of the processing task.
However, Arnold teaches: [0032] As noted, the application module 24 of the client system 5 provides one or more tasks that require completion. In one embodiment, in connection with submitting task(s), the application module 24 of the client system 5 also provides an identifier to the controller system 7. The identifier specifies the particular requirements of processing the task. For example, the identifier may indicate the ranking utility that is associated with the incoming task so that the appropriate ranking values can be utilized to determine which remote stations 20 are suitable to participate in the execution of the submitted task.[0033] In the illustrated embodiment, the controller system 7 includes a rating module 26 that determines the ranking of the various remote systems 20 based on the ranking utility 24 provided by the client system 5. The controller system 7 also includes a delegating module 27 that assigns tasks (or sub-tasks) to the remote systems 20 based on the determined ranking values of the remote systems 20.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Parker and Arnold before them, to modify Parker’s processor-based criteria so that he required processing capability and ranking are based on the requirement of the task as taught by Arnold. One would have been motivated to do so to avoid assigning task to devices lacking sufficient resources and to select the device best suited to perform the task. See Arnold ([0026-0028], [0032-0033])
Regarding claim 8, Arnold:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein determining the priority value for each computing device includes determining a contribution to the priority value based on the processor criterion, wherein the computing device that has the greatest available processing capability will have the best contribution to the priority value. ([0027] The assigner of the task selects the criteria that are pertinent to the task at issue such that the remote systems 20 that match closest to the criteria will have a higher rank relative to those that do not. In one embodiment, the ranking values can be scaled (e.g., scaled to a range between 0 to 100, with 100 being the highest ranking, or vice-versa).[0028] As noted, the generated ranking values of the various remote systems 20 can then be utilized to determine which of the remote systems 20 are suitable to assist with processing the submitted task provided by the client system 5. In one embodiment, aside from generating a ranking value, the ranking utility may also provide additional information (referred to as "metadata" herein) about the ranking value or the remote system 20. For example, in addition to the ranking value, the ranking utility may indicate variety of information about the remote system 20, such as the amount of configured memory (e.g., 12 gigabytes), which version of the relevant software is installed, the level of processor speed (e.g., 3 gigahertz), or the like. In other embodiments, the metadata can indicate if the resources of the remote system 20 exceed at threshold value, such as whether the configured memory exceeds a certain threshold, whether the amount of available hard disk space is at least a certain specified value, whether the processor speed is about a selected value, or the like. This metadata, in one embodiment, can be used to further refine which remote systems 20 are better suited than other qualified systems to perform the task to be assigned.) Refer to claim 7 for the motivation to combine.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 20120254965 A1), in view of Gross (US 20220405149 A1), hereafter Gross.
Regarding claim 10, Parker does not appear to explicitly teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined list of criteria includes: the computing device is one of a list of selected types of computing device.
However, Gross teaches [0063] FIG. 7 is a high level flowchart of the general process of job deployment that can be performed within the management platform 110, such as in the admin engine 205 and payload manager 215. When a compute job is submitted for execution, the system compiles a list of available devices and then identifies a set of devices to service an aggregated compute request to meet specified criteria. For example, selection can be done to use the minimum number of devices and to have a projected time of completion which meets the job requirements. In an embodiment, job information is initially obtained. 0070] The management platform 110 system selects a set of compute devices 115 from a list of available devices based on the requirements of the compute job and with available metadata about the compute devices and assigns data chunks or a number of chunks to process to each in a disaggregation process. (Step 722).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Parker and Gross before them, to modify Parker’s device selection criteria to include whether a computing device is of a suitable type for the task as taught by Gross. One would have been motivated to make such combination because Gross teaches compiling a list of available devices and filtering out devices that lack the computing environment necessary to execute the model. See Gross ([0062], [0070-0071])
Regarding claim 11, Gross teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the list of selected types of computing device is dependent on one or more properties of the processing task, or the portion of the processing task. ([0082] An embodiment of selection of compute devices and disaggregation of data across multiple compute devices is discussed in more detail with respect to the flowchart of FIG. 8. Initially a list of available devices is built (step 802). The list is then sorted based on desired optimization. For a storage-optimized disaggregation, the list of devices is ordered by size of available data storage (step 804), and from that the storage usable for payload applications is determined (step 806). To ensure there is sufficient storage, only a percentage of the actual available storage can be considered, such as 80% so that if a device as 1 GB of actual available storage, for payload allocation only 0.8 GB will be counted.[0083] Other constraints can be used in selection of devices, such as working RAM and CPU type and speed or estimated data processing speed for the present job based on benchmark data. For example, devices can be ranked by suitability for model execution, considering whether there is a GPU or just a CPU and if the difference will impact job execution; whether execution of the model will result in processor demand exceeding a specified threshold, which threshold can be configured during compute device registration or at other times; the percent of overall data payload that can be allocated to the device)
Refer to claim 10 for the motivation to combine.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 20120254965 A1), in view of Qin (US 20230037308 A1), hereafter Qin.
Regarding claim 13, Parker does not appear to explicitly teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein assessing one or more properties of the wireless communication channel comprises executing a ping test.
However, Qin teaches: [0069] The node selection module 520 may determine time intervals between the first edge node sending the requests to the other edge nodes and receiving corresponding responses from the other edge nodes. The requests and responses may be of any kind for obtaining communication conditions between the edge nodes. For example, ping requests and corresponding pong requests may be used to determine the communication delay of the first edge node with the other edge nodes. The time intervals may indicate the communication delay between the first edge node and the other edge nodes. For example, time intervals may be determined as a period of time between the first edge node sending the requests to the other edge nodes and receiving corresponding responses from the other edge nodes. See also [0070-0071]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Parker and Qin before them, to include Qin’s ping request and pong response technique in Parker’s device selection. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because the ping test provides current latency information for ranking candidate devices. See Qin ([0069])
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 20120254965 A1), in view of Shinde (US 20160378567 A1), hereafter Shinde.
Regarding claim 15, Parker does not appear to explicitly teach:
. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein if no response, or a negative response, is received at the first computing device to the second request after a given period of time has elapsed, the method further comprises: sending a third request from the first computing device to a second selected computing device of the plurality of computing devices via a wireless communication channel.
However, Shinde teaches: [0028] The mobile device (1) may include a workload monitor 212 (1) that is executed by the at least one hardware processor to monitor a progress of a workload that is forwarded to another mobile device (e.g., one of the mobile devices (2)-(N)) for processing. In response to a determination that the processed workload is not received from the another mobile device, for example, within a predetermined time period, the workload monitor 212 (1) may mark the workload as being unprocessed, and return the workload and the another mobile device information to the workload distributer 206 (1). The workload distributer 206 (1) may analyze the unprocessed workload to determine whether the unprocessed workload may be processed by a different mobile device (compared to the another mobile device), or if the unprocessed workload should be processed by the mobile device (1). For example, if a time for processing by a different mobile device is greater than a time for processing that is determined or needed for a particular workload portion, the workload portion may be processed by the mobile device (1), and otherwise by the different mobile device. See also [0048-0049]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Parker and Shinde before them, to reassign a task portion to a different available device when a response is not received within a predetermined period as taught by Shinde. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent an unresponsive device from delaying completion of the distributed task. See Shinde [0028], [0047].
Regarding claim 16, Parker teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein: the selected computing device has the best priority value of the plurality of computing devices; and the second selected computing device has the second-best priority value of the plurality of computing devices. ([0071] The resource management module 53 selects from among a plurality of available devices associated with a highest scoring metric 830. Alternatively, the devices may be selected as described herein above using device location and at least one associated operating state of the device.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Joffe (US 8683075 B1) – Teaches selecting a best server from multiple candidate servers based on route time and server load which relates to determining priority values and selecting a computing device.
Zhang (US 20230281037 A1)- is relevant because it selects a target device based on task type, location, distance, network condition and device priority and may select the device with next highest priority if highest is unavailable.
Ahmadi (US 20150120942 A1)-it selects and assigns a wireless network node to provide requested processing based on proximity, bandwidth and other network conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS A ESPANA whose telephone number is (703)756-1069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m - 5 p.m EST.
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, LEWIS BULLOCK JR can be reached at (571)272-3759. 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.
/C.A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights