CTNF 18/962,318 CTNF 102080 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION The action is responsive to amendment filed May 12, 2026 where the Applicant responded to the restriction requirement and elected Group I (claims 1-11) without traverse. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims In said amendment, Applicant amended claim 1, canceled claims 12-20 and added new claims 21-29. Claims 1-11 & 21-29 are remain pending examination Drawings Drawings filed on 11/27/2024 are acknowledged. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, line 1, “…and the CF corresponds to a HC node of the subnetwork,” fails to specify what is an HC node, and should define the acronym HC . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 3 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 presents the UE of claim 1, wherein the compute offload request is communicated to the CF via an update comprising compute requirements of a CCF. However, claim 3 fails to specify what is a compute requirement of a CCF and the other claims fail provide any explanation. The filed specification and figures do not repeat the phrase “compute requirements of a CCF” which leaves this feature as undefined. Paragraph 84 of the filed specification mentions a “CCF Status Request” but even this is unclear what it means, and is certainly not a “compute requirement of a CCF”. There are no other embodiments, drawings, or examples given in the specification detailing the compute requirements of a CCF. The specification does not satisfy the written description requirement, and gives no indication that the inventors had possession of this type of feature. Accordingly, based on broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is interpreted to mean sending compute requirements to the CCF. Claim 23 is a different statutory category of, and is a slight variation of the rejected claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected based on the same rationale given for claim 3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 11, 21-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20230259400 A1) in view of Qaisrani et al. (US 20210307018 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to: (See in Lu, Fig. 1, Elem: 110a-110n, ¶32, which teaches one or more client computing devices that is configured to issue a command in the decentralized distributed computing environment). communicate, to the CF, a computation offload request for a compute task; (See in Lu, Fig. 6, Elem: 606, ¶67, which teaches a request being generated and transmitted to a specific worker). and receive, from the CF, a compute offload response comprising a confirmation or a rejection response to the compute task. (See in Lu, Fig. 6, Elem: 608, ¶67-68, which teaches a result of the task being received from the specific worker) Lu fails to explicitly teach receiving, by an offload function (OF) of the UE, compute capabilities originating from a compute function (CF). However, Qaisrani is in the same field of invention of distributed computing (See in Qaisrani, ¶4-5). Qaisrani discloses a user equipment (UE) sending an edge compute request to an EDS (the claimed CCF), and in return, the EDS responds with a list of EAS’s (the claimed CF) (See Qaisrani, Fig. 10, Elem: 1004, 1006, and ¶112-113). The UE receives information detailing each of the EAS’s compute and performance capabilities related to offloading tasks from the UE to the EAS. . (See Qaisrani, Fig. 10, Elem: 1006, and ¶ 118) It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s equipment to provide compute capabilities from the CF. In doing so, it would make the ability to offload more organized and easier to see which device is more equipped to handle certain offload requests. Regarding claim 2, Lu fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the compute capabilities are received via a compute offload control function (CCF). However, Qaisrani teaches receiving compute capabilities from a compute function. (See in Qaisrani, Fig. 10, Elem: 1006, which teaches an Edge Discovery Server responding with a list of Edge Application Servers to the UE) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Qaisrani in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Lu fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the compute offload request is communicated to the CF via an update comprising compute requirements of a CCF. However, Qaisrani teaches where it teaches wherein the compute offload request is communicated to the CF. (See in Qaisrani, Fig. 10, Elem: 1004, ¶112-113, which teaches the device offload facilitator (DOF) (CF) function of the UE providing an edge compute request to the EDS (CCF), and the request can include criteria of the edge compute resource availability profile information). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Qaisrani in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Lu teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the compute offload request includes a CF identity (ID) associated with the CF . (See in Lu ¶67, Ln. 4-8, which teaches the task handler including information indicating identifications of the worker, the request task, and of a MQTT channel which the result of a task may be published) Regarding claim 5, Lu teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein a result of the compute task is received from the CF by the OF. (See in Lu Fig. 6, Elem: 608, ¶67-68, which teaches a result of the task being received from the specific worker) Regarding claim 6, Lu fails to explicitly teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the compute capabilities are received in response to communicating a compute capabilities status request to the CF and receiving a compute capabilities update in response thereto. However, Qaisrani teaches where it teaches receiving compute capabilities from a compute function. (See in Qaisrani, Fig. 10, Elem: 1006, which teaches an Edge Discovery Server responding with a list of Edge Application Servers to the UE) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Qaisrani in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Lu fails to explicitly teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is a low capacity (LC) node of a subnetwork, and the CF corresponds to a HC node of the subnetwork, and the subnetwork is managed by a managing node (MN).However, Qaisrani teaches the UE having different computing capabilities compared to Edge Application Server (CF) and the UE offloading tasks to the EAS. (See in Qaisrani, ¶95, which teaches the UE having limited computation capability, and as a result, the UE may have utilized efficient resource allocation via wireless transmission) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Qaisrani in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1. Claims 11, 21-26, and 29 are a different statutory category of, and are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-6 above. There claims 11, 21-26, and 29 are rejected based on the same rationale as given for 1-6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-10 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20230259400 A1) in view of Qaisrani et al. (US 20210307018 A1) and in further view of Bhatia et al. (US 20180267870 A1) . Regarding claim 7, Lu fails to explicitly teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to operate as a managing CCF in response to receiving a managing CCF indication. Bhatia is in the same field of invention of management nodes. (See in Bhatia, ¶52, which teaches an active management node and a passive management node) Bhatia discloses where a system having one active management node (the claimed managing CCF) and a passive node (the claimed supporting CCF). (See in Bhatia, ¶66, Ln. 2-6, which teaches where the first management device is determined as the active node) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s invention to include a managing node to help the ease of access when offloading between devices. Regarding claim 8, Lu fails to explicitly teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to operate as a supporting CCF in response to receiving a supporting CCF indication However, Bhatia teaches where a system having one active management node (managing CCF) and a passive node (supporting CCF). (See in Bhatia, ¶66, Ln. 6-9, which teaches where the second management device is determined as the passive node) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Bhatia in accordance to the rationale given for claim 7. Regarding claim 9, Lu fails to explicitly teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to confirm a managing CCF indication received from the CF. Bhatia is in the same field of invention and teaches where a system having one active management node (managing CCF) and a passive node (supporting CCF). (See in Bhatia, ¶78 teaches where at step 465, the second management device is now confirmed to be the second management device, and now manages and monitors components of the server computing device 110). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Bhatia in accordance to the rationale given for claim 7. Regarding claim 10, Lu fails to explicitly teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to communicate a CCF status request to the CF and receive a CCF status update in response thereto. Bhatia teaches where a system having one active management node (managing CCF), a passive node (supporting CCF), and a heartbeat signal (the claimed CCF status request). (¶66, Ln. 9-13, teaches a heartbeat signal that alerts which node is the active node) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teachings of Bhatia in accordance to the rationale given for claim 7. Claims 27 and 28 are a different statutory category of, and are slight variations of the rejected claims 7 and 8 above. There claims 27 and 28 are rejected based on the same rationale as given for 7 and 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELINE AYLIN IMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0247. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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. /CELINE AYLIN IMANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2457 06/11/2026 /RAMY M OSMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 5 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 8 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/962,318 Page 9 Art Unit: 2457
Prosecution Insights