DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 08/26/2025, Applicant on 11/25/2025, amended Claims 8-11 and 22-25, and cancelled Claims 7 and 21. Claims 1-6, 8-20 and 22-28 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even if the claims involve an abstract idea, which Applicant disputes, the claims are integrated into a practical application and additionally represent significantly more per Step 2B of the analysis because while some steps may arguably recite an abstract idea, in view of the ordered combination of the steps of using data transmission in an inventive manner and applying transformations, the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to formalizing IOT agreements. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, Applicant asserts that Claims 1 and 15 are directed to a node and a method in a node. While Examiner agrees that a node may represent an apparatus, such a generic computing element does not inherently render the processes it effectuates to not be an abstract idea. This analysis of additional elements falls within Step 2A Prong Two. Further, with respect to Applicant’s comparison to Example 39 of Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Citing pages 19-20 of Applicant’s specification for guidance as to the mechanics of the transformations applied, the transformations follow from the mentally performable receiving of some value, see column Atomic SLA value in Table 2, application of a mathematical relationship or generically recited “machine learning” or “profiling”, see column Transformed SLA in units of uniform language value in Table 2, and application of logical relationship to finalize the SLA composition, see column SLA Composition in Table 2. Example 39 corrects a facial detection neural network (NN) by retraining the facial detection NN with new digital images when the NN incorrectly detects faces in digital images of faces, and this is directed to an improvement in the technology of NNs for facial detection in digital images. Transforming service level agreements values (i.e. contract terms) into a metric is not improvement in or necessarily rooted in computer or other tech. Note that per MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."
Applicant further argues that additional elements serve to integrate alleged abstract ideas into a practical application by representing an improvement to the formation of IOT agreements. Note that per MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." Following our understanding of the transformation above, what is being effected is the transformation of numerical values according to logical relationships, operations able to be performed within the confines of the human mind by aid of pen and paper. While Applicant’s Claims may certainly recite an improvement in the performance of what ultimately amounts to mental process, it solely recites generic computing components, such as a node, to carry out said improvements and therefore cannot be said to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of its improvement to technology.
Applicant further argues that these claims serve to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and therefore amount to significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the above rationale as it applies to the transformations applied.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
Firstly, Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s further asserts that Burke fails to “generate a first end-to-end composite SLA based at least on a first set of the plurality of uniform language values” with respect to independent Claims 1 and 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a SLA”, this merely takes the form of a contract between a service provider and some other party defining standards, services, and responsibilities. Applicant’s assertion that Burke solely serves to disclose “the use of policies that are used to create rules” is effectively a different characterization of what an SLA is. Again referencing page 19 of Applicant’s specification, specifically the SLA Composition column of Table 2, the composition takes the form of logical relationships between salient metrics. The integration of different logical relationships, enforced through the coordinated rules in [0034] of Burke, therefore expressly functions as an SLA, "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". If Applicant’s conceptualization of what constitutes an SLA is different from the conventional understanding that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess, this does not appear to be evident based on Applicant’s specification or claims.
Applicant’s arguments directed to dependent Claims are therefore moot in light of the response presented above. Examiner respectfully notes that rejections have been updated to address amendments and maintained below.
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 1-6, 8-20 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A node configured to: transform a plurality of service level agreement, SLA, values into a plurality of uniform language values associated with at least a first quality of service, QoS, composite metric; and generate a first end-to-end composite SLA based at least on a first set of the plurality of uniform language values.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process. “transforming…” as it pertains to positions, paths, and cost values, “transforming…” as it pertains to the SLA values, to “generate…” a composite SLA recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claim 15 recites at least one abstract idea by analogous reasoning.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A node configured to: transform a plurality of service level agreement, SLA, values into a plurality of uniform language values associated with at least a first quality of service, QoS, composite metric; and generate a first end-to-end composite SLA based at least on a first set of the plurality of uniform language values.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “a node”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 15 does not recite any additional limitations.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claim 15 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 2-14, 16-28 do not recite any additional elements beyond those recited in the claims from which they depend, and as a result, Claims 2-14, 16-28 do not include any additional elements that either integrate under Step 2A Prong II or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
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 1-3,9,11,13-17, 23, 25, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofighbakhsh(US 20200177671 A1) in view of Burke(US 20160119383 A1).
Claims 1, 15
As to Claim 1,
Tofighbakhsh teaches:
A node configured to:
In [0017], “Further, the various embodiments can be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement one or more aspects of the disclosed subject matter. An article of manufacture can encompass a computer program accessible from any computer-readable device or computer-readable storage/communications media. For example, computer readable storage media can comprise but are not limited to magnetic storage devices (e.g., hard disk, floppy disk, magnetic strips . . . ), optical disks (e.g., compact disk (CD), digital versatile disk (DVD) . . . ), smart cards, and flash memory devices (e.g., card, stick, key drive . . . ). Of course, those skilled in the art will recognize many modifications can be made to this configuration without departing from the scope or spirit of the various embodiments”.
transform a plurality of service level agreement, SLA, values into a plurality of uniform language values associated with at least a first quality of service, QoS, composite metric;
Understanding the uniform language values to be parameters, in [0029], "The master IoT orchestration component 108 can be responsible for determining SLA declaration parameter sets that define the expected SLA/QoS associated with a tracked device 106. As an example, a declaration parameter can provide expected and unexpected states associated with the service, QoS, and/or interaction methods." This data is generated on the basis of initial agreement values, in Claim 12, " A method, comprising: receiving, by a system comprising a processor, provisioning data associated with a global Internet of things service related to a mobile Internet of things device; based on the provisioning data, determining, by the system, parameter data that defines an expected quality of service associated with the mobile Internet of things device".
based at least on a first set of the plurality of uniform language values.
Understanding the uniform language values to be parameters, in [0029], "The master IoT orchestration component 108 can be responsible for determining SLA declaration parameter sets that define the expected SLA/QoS associated with a tracked device 106. As an example, a declaration parameter can provide expected and unexpected states associated with the service, QoS, and/or interaction methods." This data is generated on the basis of initial agreement values, in Claim 12, " A method, comprising: receiving, by a system comprising a processor, provisioning data associated with a global Internet of things service related to a mobile Internet of things device; based on the provisioning data, determining, by the system, parameter data that defines an expected quality of service associated with the mobile Internet of things device".
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
and generate a first end-to-end composite SLA
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk.
Tofighbakhsh discloses a system for coordinating an IoT system with monitoring to ensure QoS metrics. Burke discloses a system for facilitating dynamic enforcement of service policies including SLAs. Each reference discloses means for managing quality standards in service agreements. Extending the dynamic management as recorded in Burke to the system of Tofighbakhsh is applicable as both are fundamentally concerned with the management of quality metrics in service agreements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic policy management as taught in Burke and apply that to the system as taught in Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the means for management in Burke would better enable users to responsively manage salient systems using vendor-provided services.
Claim 15 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 2, 16
As to Claim 2, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
The node of Claim 1, further configured to receive at least one predefined criterion including a maximum first QoS composite metric value, the generating of the first end-to-end composite SLA being based on the maximum first QoS composite metric value.
In [0021], " A service level definition (SLD) represents a service policy that protects the service provider infrastructure access and utilization constraints, such as for example from accesses by non-contracting entities for which an SLA has not been established, or to limit a maximum resource utilization to prevent service degradation (e.g., maximum number of messages per minute). An SLD, when attached to a policy subject, is enforced by a policy enforcement point (PEP). A “policy subject” represents an entity with which a policy (e.g., an SLA or SLD) may be associated, such as for example, an endpoint of a transaction, a message, a resource, an operation or other entity".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 2.
Claims 3, 17
As to Claim 3, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh teaches:
the operational data fails to meet the at least one predefined criterion in a predefined quantity of instances
In [0039], "In one embodiment, the edge IoT controller 204 can comprise a status monitoring component 402 that can receive internal and/or external state data. In an example, the internal state data can be received from one or more of the distributed IoT gateway nodes 102 and can comprise information such as, but not limited to, a report of tasks performed, received sensor measurements, error/failure conditions, alerts, and/or unexpected scenarios".
being based at least on a second set of the plurality of uniform language values.
Understanding the uniform language values to be parameters, in [0029], "The master IoT orchestration component 108 can be responsible for determining SLA declaration parameter sets that define the expected SLA/QoS associated with a tracked device 106. As an example, a declaration parameter can provide expected and unexpected states associated with the service, QoS, and/or interaction methods."
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
The node of Claim 2, further configured to: monitor operational data associated with the first end-to-end composite SLA;
In [0025], "As such, enforcement of this SLA by a PEP would involve identification of the respective consumers, correlation of the respective consumers with their selected service plans/levels, and monitoring of request rates (e.g., message rates, transaction rates, etc.) for each consumer based upon their respective selected plans".
determine that ...; and generate a second end-to-end composite SLA based at least on the determination that ..., the second end-to-end composite SLA
In [0086], "As such, the policy framework 216 provides dynamic rule creation and processing. As any change to a policy is made, the processing rules and actions associated with the respective policy may be recreated by the policy framework 216, the previous processing rules and processing actions may be removed and replaced by the newly-created processing rules and processing actions. Accordingly, policy implementation and enforcement, policy maintenance, and policy adaptation to changes may be improved by use of the present technology". Again, we construe the composite SLA to be the overall set of policies, along with sub processing rules outlined by the system of Burke. As the subrules that make up the composite set of rules has changed, we can acceptably say a change in the overall SLA has changed. Reference is made to rules in the specification, on pg. 8 Lines 9-13, but this is in regards to "a uniform set of rules". The processing rules of Burke correspond to SLA(s) and are distinct.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 17 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 3.
Claims 9, 23
As to Claim 9, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
The node of Claim 3, wherein the second end-to-end composite SLA corresponds to a plurality of predefined SLAs, each predefined SLA configured to provide a network service according to a respective service value.
In [0037], "The policy enforcement server_1 108 through the policy enforcement server_T 110 communicate and interconnect via a network 112 with a policy registry 114 that stores policies (e.g., SLDs and SLAs) generated by one or more of a service provider server_1 116 through a service provider server_M 118". The service values are understood to be the terms of each individual SLA ; we clearly have support for a plurality of SLAs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 9.
Claim 11, 25
As to Claim 11, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh teaches:
uniform language values
Understanding the uniform language values to be parameters, in [0029], "The master IoT orchestration component 108 can be responsible for determining SLA declaration parameter sets that define the expected SLA/QoS associated with a tracked device 106. As an example, a declaration parameter can provide expected and unexpected states associated with the service, QoS, and/or interaction methods." This data is generated on the basis of initial agreement values, in Claim 12, " A method, comprising: receiving, by a system comprising a processor, provisioning data associated with a global Internet of things service related to a mobile Internet of things device; based on the provisioning data, determining, by the system, parameter data that defines an expected quality of service associated with the mobile Internet of things device".
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
The node of Claim 3, wherein one of: the second set of the plurality of ... meets the at least one predefined criterion; and the second set of the plurality of ... meets a modified version of the at least one predefined criterion, the modified version of the at least one predefined criterion being configured due to the plurality of ... being unable to meet the at least one predefined criterion.
In [0086], "As such, the policy framework 216 provides dynamic rule creation and processing. As any change to a policy is made, the processing rules and actions associated with the respective policy may be recreated by the policy framework 216, the previous processing rules and processing actions may be removed and replaced by the newly-created processing rules and processing actions. Accordingly, policy implementation and enforcement, policy maintenance, and policy adaptation to changes may be improved by use of the present technology". We construe additional processing rules that enforce the criteria that prompt an update to be the meeting of the criterion, which can be specified as SLDs, in [0021], " A service level definition (SLD) represents a service policy that protects the service provider infrastructure access and utilization constraints, such as for example from accesses by non-contracting entities for which an SLA has not been established, or to limit a maximum resource utilization to prevent service degradation (e.g., maximum number of messages per minute)".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 25 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 11.
Claims 13, 27
As to Claim 13, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh teaches:
uniform language values
Understanding the uniform language values to be parameters, in [0029], "The master IoT orchestration component 108 can be responsible for determining SLA declaration parameter sets that define the expected SLA/QoS associated with a tracked device 106. As an example, a declaration parameter can provide expected and unexpected states associated with the service, QoS, and/or interaction methods." This data is generated on the basis of initial agreement values, in Claim 12, " A method, comprising: receiving, by a system comprising a processor, provisioning data associated with a global Internet of things service related to a mobile Internet of things device; based on the provisioning data, determining, by the system, parameter data that defines an expected quality of service associated with the mobile Internet of things device".
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
The node Claim 1, further configured to: identify a plurality of SLA tiers, each SLA tier including at least one of the plurality of SLA values;
In light of Pg. 6 Lines15-24 of the specification, we construe these tiers to be logical groupings corresponding to services. [0075-0076], "A proxy policy_1 502 is illustrated. It is understood that many effective policies may be created based upon a set of policies represented by the SLD policy_B1 302 and the SLA policies 402 through 406...The ellipsis dots below the proxy policy_1 502 represent the continuation of the created effective policies to include the additional effective policies that may be created. Within this example, the policy parser 218 annotates each proxy policy object with additional information, along with the associated SLD policy assertion(s) from the Policy_B1 302, the credentials that are to be matched for each SLA, and the corresponding assertions that are to be used to enforce the respective policies. As can be seen from FIG. 6, an SLD proxy policy portion 504 represents a similar effective policy as the proxy policy_1 304 of FIG. 3. As such, additional description of this portion of the proxy policy_1 502 may be obtained with reference to FIG. 3 as described above.".
and the generating of the first end-to-end composite SLA being based on selecting
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk.
corresponding to each one of the plurality of SLA tiers to form the first set of the plurality of
In light of Pg. 6 Lines15-24 of the specification, we construe these tiers to be logical groupings corresponding to services. [0075-0076], "A proxy policy_1 502 is illustrated. It is understood that many effective policies may be created based upon a set of policies represented by the SLD policy_B1 302 and the SLA policies 402 through 406...The ellipsis dots below the proxy policy_1 502 represent the continuation of the created effective policies to include the additional effective policies that may be created. Within this example, the policy parser 218 annotates each proxy policy object with additional information, along with the associated SLD policy assertion(s) from the Policy_B1 302, the credentials that are to be matched for each SLA, and the corresponding assertions that are to be used to enforce the respective policies. As can be seen from FIG. 6, an SLD proxy policy portion 504 represents a similar effective policy as the proxy policy_1 304 of FIG. 3. As such, additional description of this portion of the proxy policy_1 502 may be obtained with reference to FIG. 3 as described above.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 27 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 13.
Claims 14, 28
As to Claim 14, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh teaches:
a first tier associated with a network slice from a wireless device to a network node, a second tier associated with a network slice from the network node to an edge network node (16), and a third tier associated with a cloud network computing network node.
Various groupings of components are outlined in [0025], "According to an embodiment, system 100 deploys, within edge clouds, a group of distributed edge IoT gateway nodes 102 at various geographical locations nationally and/or internationally, to form a unified communication protocol that enables real-time monitoring of IoT services and support for IoT QoS and/or SLA that is desirable by end users. The edge clouds comprise a networked group of devices that are deployed within the logical extremes of a network (e.g., within a radio access network) away from centralized points (e.g., core mobility network). Moreover, the devices (e.g., distributed edge IoT gateway nodes 102) of the edge clouds allow data produced by tracked IoT devices 106 to be processed closer to where it is created instead of sending it across long routes to core network clouds". We construe the distributed gateway nodes to be the first tier, the edge clouds to be the second, and the core network clouds to be the third. These are groupings of devices for which there may be individual proxy policies in Burke above to enforce service expectations.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
The node of Claim 13, wherein the plurality of SLA tiers include one of:
In light of Pg. 6 Lines 15-24 of the specification, we construe these tiers to be logical groupings corresponding to services. [0075-0076], "A proxy policy_1 502 is illustrated. It is understood that many effective policies may be created based upon a set of policies represented by the SLD policy_B1 302 and the SLA policies 402 through 406...The ellipsis dots below the proxy policy_1 502 represent the continuation of the created effective policies to include the additional effective policies that may be created. Within this example, the policy parser 218 annotates each proxy policy object with additional information, along with the associated SLD policy assertion(s) from the Policy_B1 302, the credentials that are to be matched for each SLA, and the corresponding assertions that are to be used to enforce the respective policies. As can be seen from FIG. 6, an SLD proxy policy portion 504 represents a similar effective policy as the proxy policy_1 304 of FIG. 3. As such, additional description of this portion of the proxy policy_1 502 may be obtained with reference to FIG. 3 as described above".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 28 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 14.
Claims 4-6, 10, 18-20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofighbakhsh(US 20200177671 A1) in view of Burke(US 20160119383 A1) in further view of Patel(US 20080025230 A1).
Claims 4, 18
As to Claim 4, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh teaches:
The node of Claim 2, wherein the plurality of uniform language values are associated with a second QoS composite metric that is different from the first QoS composite metric;
In [0029], "The master IoT orchestration component 108 can be responsible for determining SLA declaration parameter sets that define the expected SLA/QoS associated with a tracked device 106. As an example, a declaration parameter can provide expected and unexpected states associated with the service, QoS, and/or interaction methods". Here, we outline support for a plurality of parameters that can each individually correspond to a QoS expectation.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
for generating an end-to-end composite SLA
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk.
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Patel teaches:
and one of: the first QoS composite metric is prioritized over the second QoS composite metric… ; and the second QoS composite metric is prioritized over the first QoS composite metric for …
In [0111], "Moreover, aspects of the present invention allow application based QoS priorities to change based on user roles and machine status, which can vary dynamically over time, circumstance and/or situation. Aspects allow application level information relating to user roles and machine status to be extracted by deep message inspection and related lookups and used to markup network level headers such that network elements handle the messages with QoS priorities based on the application-level information".
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke discloses a system for management of quality metrics in service agreements. Patel discloses a system meant to manage QoS metrics by dynamically prioritizing messages in accordance with goal QoS metrics. Each reference discloses means for managing quality service metrics. Extending the QoS prioritization as recorded in Patel is applicable to the system of Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke as both are concerned with managing quality metrics in the context of IT systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the QoS prioritization as taught in Patel and apply that to the system as taught in Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the QoS prioritization would enable users to tailor developed service agreements to reflect different priorities and ensure an optimal user experience.
Claim 18 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claims 5, 19
As to Claim 5, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke and Patel teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Patel teaches:
The node of Claim 4, wherein the second QoS composite metric is a cost metric.
In [0244], “An AONS Router provides the following functionalities: … cost of transmission (selection among multiple service providers); and infrastructure services such as sending to a logging facility, sending to a storage area network (SAN) for backup purposes, and interfacing to a cache engine for cacheable messages (like catalogs)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the QoS prioritization of Patel and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 19.
Claims 6, 20
As to Claim 6, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke and Patel teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:The node of Claim 4, wherein the at least one predefined criterion includes a maximum second QoS composite metric value,
In [0021], " A service level definition (SLD) represents a service policy that protects the service provider infrastructure access and utilization constraints, such as for example from accesses by non-contracting entities for which an SLA has not been established, or to limit a maximum resource utilization to prevent service degradation (e.g., maximum number of messages per minute). An SLD, when attached to a policy subject, is enforced by a policy enforcement point (PEP). A “policy subject” represents an entity with which a policy (e.g., an SLA or SLD) may be associated, such as for example, an endpoint of a transaction, a message, a resource, an operation or other entity".
the generating of the first end-to-end SLA being based on the maximum second QoS composite metric value of the at least one predefined criterion
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the dynamic management of Burke and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh combined with Patel. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claims 10, 24
As to Claim 10, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
end-to-end composite SLA
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk. Note that the role of SLD's of Burke can analogize to enforcing the QoS metrics that we monitor in Patel, in [0021] "A service level definition (SLD) represents a service policy that protects the service provider infrastructure access and utilization constraints, such as for example from accesses by non-contracting entities for which an SLA has not been established, or to limit a maximum resource utilization to prevent service degradation (e.g., maximum number of messages per minute)".
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Patel teaches:
The node of Claim 3, wherein the second ... is configured to provide one of: less latency deviation than the first ...; a larger network slice than the first ...; and addition network resources than the first …
In [0006], "To minimize delay for traffic with heightened sensitivity to delay and traffic generated by high priority sources, networks implement Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities. QoS provides priority to delay-sensitive and high priority network traffic with techniques that can include dedicated or otherwise guaranteed bandwidth, controlled latency and jitter, and minimizing loss characteristics such preventing dropping of packets therefrom". Latency deviation is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as jitter, and bandwidth can be reasonably construed to be network resources.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the QoS prioritization of Patel and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 4.
Claim 24 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 10.
Claims 8, 12, 22, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofighbakhsh(US 20200177671 A1) in view of Burke(US 20160119383 A1) in further view of Bonvin(US 20140136571 A1).
Claim 8, 22
As to Claim 8, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
end-to-end composite SLA
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk.
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Bonvin teaches:
The node of Claim 3, wherein the second … is associated with at least one different service vendor than the first ...
In [0067], "Redundant striping presents several advantages. First, it allows to tolerate up to n-m provider outages, hence greatly improving the durability as well as the availability of the stored data. The user may also choose how to recover from a provider failure. One might decide to reconstruct the missing chunks from the other providers and store them to new providers, or on the other hand, one might decide to ignore the failure and wait for the provider to recover".
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke discloses a system for management of quality metrics in service agreements. Bonvin discloses a system meant to meant to optimize data storage by dynamically managing service provider relationships. Each reference discloses means for ensuring performance in IT service agreements. Extending the configurability and dynamic service changes of Bonvin is applicable to Burke as they are both fundamentally concerned with ensuring performance in IT service agreements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the configurability and dynamic service changes of Bonvin as and apply that to the system as taught in Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting the configurability and dynamic service changes of Bonvin would enable users to responsively update and refine the SLA.
Claim 22 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 8.
Claims 12,26
As to Claim 12, Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Tofighbakhsh does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Burke teaches:
end-to-end composite SLA.
In [0034], "As such, one device, such as a PEP, may be configured to consume and transform policies to create processing rules, and to distribute the created processing rules to other PEPs for enforcement along with enforcement by the PEP that performed the transformation, which provides one possible option for consistent policy enforcement results across multiple of PEPs. Alternatively, each PEP of a multiple PEP environment may be configured to consume and transform service policies into processing rules with consistent transformation results across a set of PEPs, which may also result in consistent policy enforcement results". We construe the composite SLA to be the coordinated rules enforced by the system of Burk. Note that the role of SLD's of Burke can analogize to enforcing QoS metrics, in [0021] "A service level definition (SLD) represents a service policy that protects the service provider infrastructure access and utilization constraints, such as for example from accesses by non-contracting entities for which an SLA has not been established, or to limit a maximum resource utilization to prevent service degradation (e.g., maximum number of messages per minute)".
Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Bonvin teaches:
The node of Claim 2, wherein the at least one predefined criterion is provided by a user of the first
In [0068], "Given customer (i.e., data owner/producer) requirements (possibly differentiated per data item), such as data durability, data availability or independence from cloud providers to avoid vendors lock-in, it then becomes a non-trivial task to find the cloud storage provider(s) or combinations of cloud storage providers that offer the best price to store users' data".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the configurability and dynamic service changes of Bonvin and apply that to the system of Tofighbakhsh combined with Burke. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 8.
Claim 26 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 12.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623