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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent App Pub 20210021619) in view of Guim Bernat (U.S. Patent App Pub 20210144517) herein referred to as Guim.
Regarding claim 1,
Smith teaches the method implemented by a cloud management platform, wherein the method comprises: obtaining, from a tenant and via an interface of the cloud management platform, a resource pool deployment request for M edge nodes, wherein an i.sup.th group of applications in M groups of applications is on an i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes, wherein M≥2, and wherein M≥i≥1; and (See paragraphs 218, 102-104, abstract and fig 8, Smith teaches obtaining a request to perform a workload on a group of edge nodes (2 edge nodes running applications)
setting, based on the resource pool deployment request, an edge node resource pool comprising the M edge nodes so that every two edge nodes in the edge node resource pool trust each other and have a resource sharing capability. (See paragraphs 102-104, 107-108 abstract, and fig 8, Smith teaches a group of nodes keep track of each others reputation/trust scores so two edge nodes trust each other based on reputations core. Further paragraph 60 teaches resources being able to be transferred from edge node to edge node. So containers are live-migrated between the edge nodes inn the group – resources are shared between the edge nodes based on trust)
Smith does not explicitly teach but Guim teaches setting, based on the resource pool deployment request, an edge node resource pool comprising the M edge nodes so that every two edge nodes in the edge node resource pool trust each other and have a resource sharing capability, (See paragraphs 145-147, figures 7-8, Guim teaches multiple edge nodes with resource pool)
wherein the M edge nodes jointly complete a service of the tenant in the edge node resource pool. (See paragraphs 145, 146, 150, figures 7-8, Guim teaches edge nodes coordinating to jointly complete a service of the tenant)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Guim with Smith because both deal with edge nodes. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Guim into Smith is that Guim teaches edge computing system improves the total cost of ownership, reduce an application and network latency for network back haul traffic and associated energy consumption, improve service capabilities, and compliance with security or data privacy requirements, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0002] - [0005], Guim)
Regarding claim 2,
Smith and Guim teach the method of claim 1, wherein setting the edge node resource pool comprises: generating, based on a digital certification authority (CA) certificate, a certificate chain comprising M certificates; and sending, to the i.sup.th edge node, an i.sup.th certificate in the M certificates indicating that the i.sup.th edge node is trustworthy in the edge node resource pool. (See paragraphs 24-25, 139 Smith teaches each node receives and holds ETV *evidence token) proving trustworthiness within the group)
Regarding claim 3,
Smith and Guim teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying that the i.sup.th edge node is faulty; migrating, in response to identifying that the i.sup.th edge node is faulty, an i.sup.th certificate and the i.sup.th group of applications from the i.sup.th edge node to a target edge node other than the M edge nodes; and setting the target edge node as a new i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes. (See paragraphs 156, 60, 26, Smith teaches node is evicted the workload and its attestation evidence move to the replacement node which then joins the group)
Regarding claim 4,
Smith and Guim teach the method of claim 1, further comprising setting an application scheduling mechanism on the i.sup.th edge node to enable the i.sup.th edge node to migrate a part of applications in the i.sup.th group of applications to a j.sup.th edge node when a resource for running the i.sup.th group of applications is greater than a preset resource threshold, wherein j=1, . . . , M, and wherein j≠i. (See paragraphs 122, 49-50, Smith teaches controller on every node monitors resource thresholds and migrates portions of the workload when the threshold is exceeded)
Regarding claim 5,
Smith and Guim teach the method of claim 4, wherein the j.sup.th edge node is one of the M edge nodes other than the i.sup.th edge node. (See paragraphs 60-61, 149, Smith teaches migrating from an edge node to other edge nodes all with the group managed by the ledger)
Regarding claim 6,
Smith and Guim teach the method of claim 1, wherein the resource pool deployment request comprises resource information of a resource, and wherein the resource comprises at least one of a computing resource, a storage resource, or a network resource. (See paragraphs 23, 36, Smith)
Claims 7-12 list all the same elements of claims 1-6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-6 applies equally as well to claims 7-12. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation of 7. A cloud management platform comprising: an interface; and a processor coupled to the interface and configured to: (See paragraphs 41, 88, Smith)
Claims 13-18 list all the same elements of claims 1-6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-6 applies equally as well to claims 13-18. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation of
13. A system comprising: M edge nodes, wherein an i.sup.th group of applications in M groups of applications is on an i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes, wherein M≥2, and wherein M≥i≥1; and a cloud management platform comprising a interface, coupled to the M edge nodes, (See paragraphs 218, 102-104, abstract and fig 8, Smith teaches obtaining a request to perform a workload on a group of edge nodes (2 edge nodes running applications)
Claims 19-20 list all the same elements of claims 1-2, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-2 applies equally as well to claims 19-20. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation of 19. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that (See paragraphs 99-100, Smith)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
1.So, U.S. Patent App 20200374740, teaches techniques for distribution of application logic in digital networks are disclosed. In one embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method that includes receiving a request from a first device to initiate a service instance associated with a service. The service instance is associated with application logic. The method further includes determining one or more parameters associated with the request, identifying at least a portion of the application logic to distribute to a mobile edge server based on the one or more parameters, and distributing the at least a portion of the application logic to the mobile edge server to cause the mobile edge server to provide the service instance to the first device.
2. Giust, U.S. Patent App, 20190104030, teaches a method for operating, by an MEC operator, a multi-access edge computing (MEC) system in which applications are provided by MEC tenants for deployment on MEC hosts of the MEC system and in which various levels of privileges are provided by the MEC operator to the MEC tenants. The method includes assigning, by an MEC broker, privileges to the MEC tenants; initiating, by the MEC broker via interactions with one or more of an MEC Orchestrator, an MEC platform manager, and a user app LCM proxy, operations. The operations can include one or more of application package on-boarding, application instance installation on selected MEC hosts, application provisioning, through configuration of appropriate parameters, and application life-cycle management operations including one or more of bootstrapping, termination, migration, scaling. The method further includes pre-validating, using the privileges provided to the MEC tenants, operation requests issued by the MEC tenants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights