DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. This communication is in response to claims 1-12 filed on 01/31/2025.
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 6, 8, and 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
2. Claim 6 recites “the second resource information” in the limitation acquiring a first communication delay time, however instances of “second resource information” are recited both previously in claim 6 and in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. It is therefore unclear which of these previously disclosed recitations “the second resource information” is intended to refer to, or whether the second resource information in claim 6 is intended to refer to the same second resource information as in claim 1.
For purposes of examination, the second resource information in claim 6 is interpreted as referring to any resource information related to the networks.
3. Claim 8 recites “the number” of networks. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as a number of networks.
4. Claim 11 recites “the application program” in the selecting limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as an application program.
Comments Regarding Examination
5. Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program which is executed by a computer, the program capable of causing the computer to execute the claimed functions. Although it is understood that the computer could not execute the claimed functionality in the absence of enabling software and the limitations are treated on their merits, Applicant is urged to remove the term “capable of” to avoid any ambiguity regarding its association as functional claim language.
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.
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 no obviousness.
6. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashimo et al. (US 2024/0137284) in view of Gazvoda (US 2025/0077257).
Regarding claim 1, Mashimo teaches an orchestration device comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire a requested delay time requested by a user with respect to a communication system (allowing an operator 2 to input service provision information, [0045]; The service provision information includes, for example, a solution service name of a service to be provided, [0045]; The latency limit 102 is maximum latency that is acceptable at a time of providing the solution service, [0059]), the communication system including an edge device (an edge server 61 (reference signs 61-A through 61-C in FIG. 1) that provides computational resources for executing a solution service application, [0043]) and first and second server devices connected via a network (a cloud server 51 (reference signs 51-A through 51-C in FIG. 1) that provides computational resources for executing a solution service application, [0042]);
acquire first resource information related to resources of each of the first and second server devices (The number of CPU cores 305 indicates information regarding the number of CPU cores that are provided as a computational resource by the server infrastructure of the corresponding entry. The memory 306 indicates information regarding a size of memory that is provided as a computational resource by the server infrastructure of the corresponding entry, [0061]);
acquire second resource information related to resources of the network (The bandwidth 204 indicates a maximum communication bandwidth that the wireless communication infrastructure of the corresponding entry can provide. The wireless network section delay 205 indicates a maximum communication delay in a network section provided by the wireless communication infrastructure of the corresponding entry, [0060]; The inter-area delay information table 400 includes information regarding a communication delay in a section of the public network 80 in a case of performing communication between an area in which the solution service usage environment 70 is present and an area in which the server infrastructure 50 provided on a cloud is present, [0062]);
select a server device from among the first and second server devices on which an application program for realizing the communication system is to run (a server infrastructure in which an application of a solution service is installed, [0009]) based on the requested delay time and the first and second resource information (The infrastructure design unit 12 refers to the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200 and the server infrastructure information table 300 on the basis of the received service requirement information, extracts combinations of wireless communication infrastructures and server infrastructures such that the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided, selects, from among the extracted combinations, a combination for which the provision cost is a minimum, [0065]); and
perform setting to deploy the application program on the selected server device (generates infrastructure design information (S105). For example, the infrastructure design information includes a solution service name, the number of service-provided users, a communication infrastructure name of the selected wireless communication infrastructure, a server infrastructure name of the selected server infrastructure, and a total provision cost of the communication infrastructure and the server infrastructure, [0065]); and
However, Mashimo does not explicitly disclose setting a maximum communication delay with respect to the network.
Gazvoda teaches a processor configured to:
set a maximum communication delay with respect to a network (The compute node 20 is then provisioned in step 254B and the resulting global latency and load parameters determined. If latency is within the threshold value (for example, 7.5% greater than the optimized global latency in one embodiment) and load is within acceptable parameters, then the process can proceed to step 256. If the relevant criteria are not met in step 254D, a further iteration is run to generate a new state, and so on., [0397]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dynamically adjust a global latency in the system/method of Mashimo as suggested by Gazvoda based on measured real-world data related to local latency between nodes. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to configure network parameters and thresholds based on updated deployment of applications across the network and changing conditions.
Regarding claim 2, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 1, wherein
the processor is configured to:
predict, based on the first resource information, a first processing delay time that occurs due to the application program running on the first server device and a second processing delay time that occurs due to the application program running on the second server device (the infrastructure design unit 12 calculates a processing delay from the processing delay per unit-computational resource included in the service requirement information, as well as the number of CPU cores 305 and the memory 306, in the server infrastructure information table 300, of the entry corresponding to the server infrastructure included in the combination, [0068]),
acquire a communication delay time that can be assured by the network from the second resource information (the infrastructure design unit 12 refers to the inter-area delay information table 400 to thereby calculate a communication delay in a public-network section between the service provision area and the cloud (S133). Further, the infrastructure design unit 12 acquires the wireless network section delay 205 of the corresponding entry in the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200, calculates the sum of the wireless network section delay 205 and the communication delay in the public-network section, and calculates the communication delay for the combination (S134), [0068]); and
select a server device on which the application program is to run (the infrastructure design unit 12 selects a combination having the lowest total provision cost, and generates infrastructure design information on the basis of the service requirement information and the entry corresponding to the selected combination in the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200 and the server infrastructure information table 300 (S129), [0067]) based on a first total time of the first processing delay time and the communication delay time and a second total time of the second processing delay time and the communication delay time (the infrastructure design unit 12 calculates estimated values of the communication delay and the processing delay for all combinations of the communication infrastructure candidates and server infrastructures that can be provided, and calculates the sum of the estimated values of the communication delay and the processing delay as an estimated value of the latency (S126), [0067]; the infrastructure design unit 12 calculates the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay as an estimated value of the latency for the corresponding combination (S137), [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 1, wherein
the network includes a first network deployed between the edge device and the first server device, and a second network deployed between the edge device and the second server device (A wireless communication infrastructure 40 (reference signs 40-A through 40-C in FIG. 1) is a network infrastructure for connecting a user terminal 71 of a user, which is present in a solution service usage environment 70, to the server infrastructure 50 or the server infrastructure 60 via a wireless interface, [0041]),
the processor is configured to:
acquire second resource information relating to resources of each of the first and second networks (FIG. 5, an example of a wireless communication infrastructure information table will be described. FIG. 5 is an example of the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200 managed by the wireless communication infrastructure information DB 21. The wireless communication infrastructure information table 200 according to the present embodiment includes a communication infrastructure name 201, a communication method 202, a provision area 203, a bandwidth 204, a wireless network section delay 205, and a provision cost 206. The communication infrastructure name 201 is a name for uniquely identifying a wireless communication infrastructure that is to be provided, and differs among entries in the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200, [0060]), and
predict, based on the first resource information, a first processing delay time that occurs due to the application program running on the first server device and a second processing delay time that occurs due to the application program running on the second server device (the infrastructure design unit 12 calculates a processing delay from the processing delay per unit-computational resource included in the service requirement information, as well as the number of CPU cores 305 and the memory 306, in the server infrastructure information table 300, of the entry corresponding to the server infrastructure included in the combination. For example, in a case where the number of CPU cores and the memory of a unit-computational resource are 32 and 32 GB, respectively, and where the number of CPU cores and the memory of the corresponding entry are 64 and 64 GB, respectively, the processing delay is calculated as half of the processing delay per unit-computational resource (S136), [0068]);
acquire, from the second resource information, a first communication delay time that can be assured by the first network and a second communication delay time that can be assured by the second network (The wireless network section delay 205 indicates a maximum communication delay in a network section provided by the wireless communication infrastructure of the corresponding entry, [0060]; and
select a server device on which the application program is to run (the infrastructure design unit 12 selects a combination having the lowest total provision cost, and generates infrastructure design information on the basis of the service requirement information and the entry corresponding to the selected combination in the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200 and the server infrastructure information table 300 (S129), [0067]) based on a first total time of the first processing delay time and the first communication delay time and a second total time of the second processing delay time and the second communication delay time (the infrastructure design unit 12 calculates estimated values of the communication delay and the processing delay for all combinations of the communication infrastructure candidates and server infrastructures that can be provided, and calculates the sum of the estimated values of the communication delay and the processing delay as an estimated value of the latency (S126), [0067]; the infrastructure design unit 12 calculates the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay as an estimated value of the latency for the corresponding combination (S137), [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 6, wherein
each of the first and second networks (A wireless communication infrastructure 40 (reference signs 40-A through 40-C in FIG. 1) is a network infrastructure for connecting a user terminal 71 of a user, which is present in a solution service usage environment 70, to the server infrastructure 50, [0041]) includes a plurality of networks (wireless communication infrastructure 40 and a public network 80, [0042]), and
the processor is configured to select, in a case where each of the first and second total times is less than or equal to the requested delay time, a server device on which the application program is to run based on a maximum value of a communication delay time that can be assured by each of the plurality of networks configuring the first network and a maximum value of a communication delay time that can be assured by each of the plurality of networks configuring the second network (The wireless network section delay 205 indicates a maximum communication delay in a network section provided by the wireless communication infrastructure of the corresponding entry, [0060]; information regarding a communication delay in a section of the public network 80 in a case of performing communication between an area in which the solution service usage environment 70 is present and an area in which the server infrastructure 50 provided on a cloud is present, [0062]; the infrastructure design unit 12 acquires the wireless network section delay 205 of the corresponding entry in the wireless communication infrastructure information table 200, calculates the sum of the wireless network section delay 205 and the communication delay in the public-network section, and calculates the communication delay for the combination (S134), [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 1, wherein
the processor is configured to acquire the second resource information from a network management node that manages the network (The cloud management server 52 monitors communication between the cloud server 51 and the user terminal 71 and enables measurement of a communication delay for each solution service and measurement of a processing delay of a solution service application executed on the cloud server 51, [0042]; The edge management server 62 monitors communication between the edge server 61 and the user terminal 71 and enables measurement of a communication delay for each solution service and measurement of a processing delay of a solution service application executed on the edge server 61, [0043]; The infrastructure usage situation monitoring unit 16 has a function of connecting to the cloud management server 52 and the edge management server 62, acquiring measurement values of a communication delay, [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, the method claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those in orchestration device claim 1 and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those in orchestration device claim 1 and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
7. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishimo-Gazvoda in view of Amer et al. (US 2021/0275908).
Regarding claim 3, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 2, wherein
the processor is configured to:
select the first server device in a case where the first total time is less than or equal to the requested delay time (extracts combinations of wireless communication infrastructures and server infrastructures such that the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided, [0065]; the infrastructure design unit 12 verifies whether there is a combination whose estimated value of the latency is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided (S127), [0027]);
select the second server device in a case where the second total time is less than or equal to the requested delay time (extracts combinations of wireless communication infrastructures and server infrastructures such that the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided, [0065]; the infrastructure design unit 12 verifies whether there is a combination whose estimated value of the latency is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided (S127), [0027]);
select the first server device in a case where both the first and second total times are less than or equal to the requested delay time, and a first provision cost is less than a second provision cost (selects, from among the extracted combinations, a combination for which the provision cost is a minimum, and generates infrastructure design information (S105), [0065]); and
select the second server device in a case where both the first and second total times are less than or equal to the requested delay time, and the second provision cost is less than the first provision cost (selects, from among the extracted combinations, a combination for which the provision cost is a minimum, and generates infrastructure design information (S105), [0065]).
However, Mashimo-Gazvoda do not explicitly teach that a minimum provision cost indicates a longer total time.
Amer teaches select a first server device in a case where a first total time is longer than a second total time (causes a lower performance server (e.g., having one or more of lower graphics processing capabilities, less bandwidth, higher latency, less geographic proximity to the streamer device, etc.) to handle workloads, [0036]); and
select a second server device in a case where the second total time is longer than the first total time (causes a lower performance server (e.g., having one or more of lower graphics processing capabilities, less bandwidth, higher latency, less geographic proximity to the streamer device, etc.) to handle workloads, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the correlation between less resource cost and higher latency in the system/method of Mashimo-Gazvoda as suggested by Amer and that any additional resource usage beyond what is necessary to satisfy a requirement is a waste of network resources. One would be motivated to combine these teachings given the desirability to optimize network resource usage.
Regarding claim 5, Mashimo does not explicitly disclose the orchestration device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to set, in a case where the first server device is selected, a maximum communication delay in the network to a range where a total time including the first processing delay time does not exceed the requested delay time, and set, in a case where the second server device is selected, a maximum communication delay to a range where a total time including the second processing delay time does not exceed the requested delay time.
Gazvoda teaches a processor is configured to:
set, in a case where a first server device is selected, a maximum communication delay in the network to a range where a total time including a first processing delay time does not exceed a requested delay time (generates, utilizing a trained machine learning model, a proposed new state of the distributed compute network having a global latency for the application which meets or exceeds the global latency threshold, [0116]); and
set, in a case where a second server device is selected, a maximum communication delay to a range where a total time including a second processing delay time does not exceed the requested delay time (generates, utilizing a trained machine learning model, a proposed new state of the distributed compute network having a global latency for the application which meets or exceeds the global latency threshold, [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dynamically adjust a global latency in the system/method of Mashimo as suggested by Gazvoda based on updated deployments of applications across a network. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to configure network parameters and thresholds based on real-world changing conditions.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishimo-Gazvoda in view of Parulkar et al. (US 10,979,534).
Regarding claim 4, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 2, wherein
the processor is configured to:
select the first server device in a case where the first total time is less than or equal to the requested delay time (extracts combinations of wireless communication infrastructures and server infrastructures such that the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided, [0065]; the infrastructure design unit 12 verifies whether there is a combination whose estimated value of the latency is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided (S127), [0027]);
select the second server device in a case where the second total time is less than or equal to the requested delay time (extracts combinations of wireless communication infrastructures and server infrastructures such that the sum of the communication delay and the processing delay is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided, [0065]; the infrastructure design unit 12 verifies whether there is a combination whose estimated value of the latency is equal to or less than the latency limit for the solution service to be provided (S127), [0027]);
select the first server device in a case where both the first and second total times are less than or equal to the requested delay time, and a provision cost of the first server device is less than a provision cost of the second service device (the provision cost 307 may be set to a value based on the number of CPU cores 305 and the memory 306, [0061]; selects, from among the extracted combinations, a combination for which the provision cost is a minimum, [0065]); and
select the second server device in a case where both the first and second total times are less than or equal to the requested delay time, and the provision cost of the second server device is less than a provision cost of the first service device (the provision cost 307 may be set to a value based on the number of CPU cores 305 and the memory 306, [0061]; selects, from among the extracted combinations, a combination for which the provision cost is a minimum, [0065]).
However, Mashimo-Gazvoda do not explicitly disclose a minimum provision cost indicates remaining resources are greater.
Parulkar teaches select a first server device in a case where both first and second total times are less than or equal to a requested delay time (selecting a provider substrate extension to host the compute instance from a plurality of provider substrate extensions of the cloud provider network, wherein the selection is based at least in part on the latency requirement, column 34 lines 33-37; The edge location placement service can determine which, if any, edge locations satisfy the customer's latency requirement and return that candidate set to the hardware virtualization service, column 34 lines 57-61), and remaining resources of the first server device are greater than those of a second server device (Using a cost function or other technique to rank the candidate edge locations, the hardware virtualization service can select an edge location on which to host the requested compute instance. Factors that may be used in the selection include the available hardware capacity at the candidate edge locations, the overall utilization of the capacity, the cost of the capacity, the margin of the latency relative to the customer's latency requirement, etc, column 34 line 63-column 35 line 3); and
select the second server device in a case where both the first and second total times are less than or equal to the requested delay time (selecting a provider substrate extension to host the compute instance from a plurality of provider substrate extensions of the cloud provider network, wherein the selection is based at least in part on the latency requirement, column 34 lines 33-37; The edge location placement service can determine which, if any, edge locations satisfy the customer's latency requirement and return that candidate set to the hardware virtualization service, column 34 lines 57-61), and remaining resources of the second server device are greater than those of the first server device (Using a cost function or other technique to rank the candidate edge locations, the hardware virtualization service can select an edge location on which to host the requested compute instance. Factors that may be used in the selection include the available hardware capacity at the candidate edge locations, the overall utilization of the capacity, the cost of the capacity, the margin of the latency relative to the customer's latency requirement, etc, column 34 line 63-column 35 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize resource cost by selecting a server with more available resource capacity in the system/method of Mashimo-Gazvoda as suggested by Parulkar in order to balance server resource usage. One would have been motivated to combine these teachings given the desirability to optimize resource usage when selecting servers on which to deploy an application.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishimo-Gazvoda in view of Averbuj et al. (US 2012/0089671).
Regarding claim 8, Mashimo teaches the orchestration device of claim 6, wherein
each of the first and second networks is configured by a plurality of networks (A wireless communication infrastructure 40 (reference signs 40-A through 40-C in FIG. 1) is a network infrastructure for connecting a user terminal 71 of a user, which is present in a solution service usage environment 70, to the server infrastructure 50, [0041]; wireless communication infrastructure 40 and a public network 80, [0042]), and
the processor is configured to select, in a case where each of the first and second total times is less than or equal to the requested delay time, a server device on which the application program is to run based on network infrastructure (calculates a total provision cost, which is the sum of the provision costs of the wireless communication infrastructure and the server infrastructure, for each combination of the wireless communication infrastructure and the server infrastructure whose estimated value of latency is equal to or less than the latency limit (S128). Then, the infrastructure design unit 12 selects a combination having the lowest total provision cost, [0067).
However, Mashimo-Gazvoda do not explicitly disclose selecting a server device based on which the application program is to run based on the number of networks configuring each of the first and second networks.
Averbuj teaches select a server based on the number of networks configuring each of a first and second networks (the ISP/OSP may take into account whether communications between the client and a particular instance of the resource travel across the ISP/OSP's backbone network, or whether the communications travel across a particular peering connection between the ISP/OSP's network and another network, [0023]; the resource selection server 132b can assign routability scores based on whether communications with the instances of the resource will be routed over the backbone network 104, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into account which networks particular communications travel across in the system/method of Mashimo-Gazvoda as suggested by Averbuj given the desirability to optimize network resource usage. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because the number of networks through which communications traverse impacts the processing and efficiency of the communications.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishimo-Gazvoda in view of Sun et al. (US 2022/0006857).
Regarding claim 10, Mashimo-Gazvoda do not explicitly disclose the orchestration device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to acquire, in a case where second resource information cannot be acquired from the network management node, the second resource information by transmitting and receiving packets via the network.
Sun teaches a processor is configured to acquire, in a case where second resource information cannot be acquired from a network management node, second resource information by transmitting and receiving packets via a network (system 100 may direct the set of client devices to test and report performance capabilities of each MEC server of the candidate subset of MEC servers. For example, as will be described in more detail below, each client device may exchange messages with each candidate MEC server to determine one-way and/or round trip latencies that the client device has with the MEC server, as well as to determine how much processing and/or communication bandwidth each candidate MEC server currently has available, [0030]; Data determined from tests at operation 206 may be reported by the client devices back to system 100 so that system 100 may take the information into account at operation 208, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange messages in the system/method of Mashimo-Gazvoda as suggested by Sun in order to test performance capabilities. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to effectively determine server processing and network communication conditions to take into account when selecting servers to deploy applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Islam et al. US 2004/0003029 – optimizing wait times by relocating application to a different server.
Islam et al. US 2004/0103194 – selecting an appropriate server based on measured wait time delays.
Toebes et al. US 2006/0117038 – selecting a server for a server based on location and distance.
Bose et al. US 2011/0289329 – selecting servers on a cloud to manage application based on a required time to respond and setting maximum response times.
Lee et al. US 2012/0173729 – selecting a particular server in response to a request from a particular application based on a maximum delay requirement of the application.
Itsumi US 2016/0352634 – performing deployment of a network function on a server based on first information related to links and second information related to server resources.
Karagiannis et al. US 2019/0012157 – optimizing customer application deployment to minimize latency.
Liu et al. US 2024/0106887 – server selection for improving latency in response to a user latency tolerance value.
Hart et al. US 2024/0264877 – selection of where to execute an application based on an optimization goal to minimize latency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADHU WOOLCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday 9-6 ET.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
MADHU WOOLCOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/MADHU WOOLCOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights