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 .
Detailed Action
This action is responsive to amendments filed September 4th, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment. Claims 1 – 11 and 21 – 29 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, filed 9/4/26, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
On page 6 of remarks, Applicant presents arguments in response to the 112(a) rejection. In response, Examiner notes that Applicant cites paragraph 69 of the specification which mentions the UE sends the claimed compute offload requirement that can include information such as “compute capacity requirements.” Accordingly, the 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
On page 7 of remarks, Applicant argues that the examiner has failed to established a proper prima facie case of anticipation based on the combination of Lu and Qaisrani. Specifically, Applicant argues that Lu “is not the same as receiving a computer offload response comprising a confirmation or rejection,” and that Lu “describes a deterministic approach…”
In response, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation being addressed simply states receiving a response that comprises “a confirmation or a rejection” of the compute task. At its face-value, the claim language is not about decision-making, i.e. it is not presented as a non-deterministic approach. Rather the claim is presented in an alternative manner where a received result can comprise either a confirmation or rejection. Accordingly, a reference showing either one of these two outcomes would broadly satisfy claim anticipation.
On page 8 of remarks, Applicant argues that “the Office Action thus cites the same portions and teachings of Lu to formulate rejections for independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5, despite the additional feature “a result of the compute task is received from the CF by the OF” recited in dependent claim 5.”
In response, dependent claim 5, is broadly worded enough that broadest reasonable interpretation both claims overlay in scope.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relief upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 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 computer 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 computer 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 devices 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 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) 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 rest 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 the response thereto.
However, Qaisrani teaches where 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 you have been motivated to modify Lu based on the teaching 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.
Claims 7 – 10 and 27 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable 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). (See in Bhatia, ¶66, 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 29 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/ 09/18/2026Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights