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 .
This Final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended and is an independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 includes the amended limitation “making adjustments …” is also broad and without reciting any specific process steps. For instance, it recites “performing machine learning based on correlations…” and no specifics regarding how the process is performed. Applicant’s specification simply repeats the same limitation without further details. The claim limitation is functional and descriptive without providing the process steps to achieve the results. The Applicant’s specification simply repeats the same limitation and without significantly more explaining how the desired results are achieved by performing machine learning. This analysis pertains to other claims limitations also as indicated before and the claims as a whole fail to comply with written description requirement. Dependent claims do not remedy the deficiency and are rejected based on the same rationale. See MPEP 2161.01.I for example: claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 and other independent claims recite limitations that are broad and ambiguous to the extent that they are incomplete for lacking specific details. Dependent claims are also broad and semantic in nature that would be part of any distributed network service provisioning and deployment system. The claim limitations recite process steps that are known in the technology. While known steps maybe part of a claim, there is no particular limiting sequence of these known process steps but just generic recitation in the claim and because these claim limitations are so broad that they lack specific details that are mappable and distinguishable from prior art. It is not clear how these claims distinguish the claimed invention from the prior arts. Claims as a whole are therefore, rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 1 amended limitation “…event management payloads … include customer related details and are request trigger mechanisms” is broad and ambiguous in that it does not specify who the customer is or what these requests trigger. The limitation is semantic and descriptive without specifying a process step, like the rest of the claim is. Amended claim as a whole is therefore, rejected as being indefinite in other limitations also. Because the amended limitation “making adjustments …” is also broad and without reciting any specific process steps. For instance, it recites “performing machine learning based on correlations…” and no specifics regarding how the process is performed. Applicant’s specification simply repeats the same limitation without further details. The claim limitation as a whole is broad, descriptive and semantic in nature that in any other case, a single prior art reference would be required to address.
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, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2023/0305858 A1, hereinafter Miller) in view of Icaza (US 2008/0120412 A1, hereinafter Icaza), and in further view of Dahan et al. (US 2020/0053834 A1, hereinafter Dahan).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a method comprising: receiving at an orchestrator gateway of a configuration-driven universal network orchestrator, a request based on a network service order to provision a requested network service, wherein the request includes a request event payload; passing provisioning information based on the request event payload to an event management component in a service management engine of the orchestrator, [Abstract describes an orchestration service and Figure 8, 802 for configuration-driven orchestrator; Par.[0067] describes receiving a request for provisioning a variety of services for a target datacenter build-up request];
passing provisioning information based on the request event payload to an event management component in a service management engine of the orchestrator, [Figure 7 for events associated with a request and at least Par.[0048] for MFO configured to coordinate events between components to automatically provision and deploy services];
a knowledge build component connected to the event management component performing a knowledge build for provisioning a plurality of network technical services based on the provisioning information, [Figure 8, and 802 for obtaining a plurality of configuration files corresponding to a plurality of services based on the request, 804 for identifying dependencies between services];
after the knowledge build is complete, a pre-process component connected to the event management component performing pre- processing identifying requirements of the plurality of network technical services, [Figure 8, 804 for identifying dependencies between services and determining an order];
communicating via the event management component one or more event management payloads based on the pre-processing to a task distribution component connected to the event management component, [task distribution, for instance based on service order, is described in Par.[0034], [0035] for provisioning and deploying services, Figure 8, 808];
the task distribution component distributing network service tasks based on the one or more event management payloads to a plurality of service providers, [Par.[0035] for provisioning and deployment tasks, Figure 8, 808, service provider context is described in Par.[0024] among others];
a runtime tracker component tracking status of completion of various distributed network service tasks on which performance of other network service tasks are dependent, [Par.[0048] describes MFO tracking relevant events for each service; Par.[0059] describes CIOS tracking events];
a post-process component confirming the request has been successfully fulfilled and communicating a corresponding status notification via the orchestrator gateway, [Par.[0042], Par.[0062], Figure 6 shows services as being successfully deployed; Figure 8, 808, Figure 5]; and
a feedback component receiving closed loop run-time feedback regarding operation of the requested network service for making adjustments, [Par.[0162], [0208], [0209], [0211] describes updates to the deployed system];
Miller is not explicit about listening on a service provider bus connected to the event management component;
Icaza teaches listening on a service provider bus connected to the event management component, [claim limitation is low level detail that would be obvious and does not even characterize the bus as any special bus; Par.[0003] and Abstract]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller to include system bus details. The motivation/suggestion would have been to implement a service multiplexer that would direct the request to appropriate service listening port, [Icaza: Abstract, Figure 1];
Miller and Icaza do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more event management payloads are indicative of one or more functions that a wireless network performs, include customer related details and are request trigger mechanisms; and making adjustments to the requested network service based on the closed loop run-time feedback regarding operation of the requested network service, including performing machine learning based on correlations between previous adjustments to network services, which are based on previous feedback including previous operation payload data regarding run-time status of requested network services from one or more respective service providers and results of the previous adjustments;
Dahan in an analogous art, teaches wherein the one or more event management payloads are indicative of one or more functions that a wireless network performs, include customer related details and are request trigger mechanisms. [see 112 rejection; Figure 2 shows wireless network; Abstract and elsewhere event triggers for change in network slices is described]; and
making adjustments to the requested network service based on the closed loop run-time feedback regarding operation of the requested network service, including performing machine learning based on correlations between previous adjustments to network services, which are based on previous feedback including previous operation payload data regarding run-time status of requested network services from one or more respective service providers and results of the previous adjustments, [Par.[0038] describes using AI/ML techniques acting as a closed-loop feedback system to adapt service levels in deployed slices: “Moreover, AI/ML component 570 can continue to extract real time, or near real time, insight from operational characteristics of a newly deployed slice, e.g., via MAE 510. This can, in some embodiments, act as a closed-loop feedback system that can adapt service levels to contracted levels, etc. Embodiments of system 500 can dynamically adjust domain-specific design metrics by altering individual domain functions to alter operational network efficiency.”];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller to make resource allocation adjustments in deployed systems. The motivation/suggestion would have been to modifying a network slice and, more particularly, to automating design of a slice, initiation of a slice event, and subsequent employment of resulting network slice(s), based on a network analytic, [Dahan: Abstract, Par.[0001]].
System claim 10 is an obvious variant of claim 1 with the amended limitation removed and is rejected as above.
Non-transitory claim 16 is an obvious variant of claim 1 with the amended limitation removed and is rejected as above.
Examiner’s note: claim limitations are broad and apply to provisioning and deployment of any complex distributed network system/services. In fact, relevant reference US 20240205111 A1, Lim et al. not used in the rejection summarizes the import of the claimed limitations in one paragraph: “[0006] According to example embodiments, a service order can refer to orders required to satisfy a particular customer order information received (e.g. requests for service provisioning to satisfy service problem recovery activities, alleviate service performance issues, etc.). Here, a service order orchestration layer can provide workflow and orchestration of the service order across a service order management area. The service order process can include the following steps: 1) decomposing or restructuring the customer order into related service orders; 2) issuing service orders to the service orchestrator to activate components/products/services; 3) issuing an allocation request to the resource order management if resources are required; 4) closing a service order when fulfilment activities are completed; and 5) reporting the completion to the customer order orchestrator layer.”
Claim limitations are semantic in nature and the claim terms are merely labels without any specific and limiting meaning. For example, terms like event payload or event management payload, what are they? Or consists of limitations that are low level and again, without any distinguishing detail, for instance service provider bus or other named components but lacking specific and distinguishable features.
Dependent claims are also broad and semantic in nature that would be part of any distributed network service provisioning and deployment system. The claim limitations recite process steps that are known in the technology, for instance, many limitations of the verbose claim of claim 11 consisting of known process steps are supported by US 2019/0394286 A1, [Par.[0037], [0059] among others]. While known steps maybe part of a claim, there is no particular limiting sequence of these known process steps but just generic recitation in the claim. For these reasons and others, no prior art mapping is given and because these claim limitations are so broad that they would be obvious over numerous prior art references and lack specific details that are mappable and distinguishable from prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended limitations in claim 1 introduce new 112 issues which are explained in this office action. New reference Dahan addresses the amended limitation. All previous analysis with the claims stands and is not addressed with the current amendment. Independent claims as a whole represent an inordinate breadth of techniques employed in the deployment of an orchestrated system and there are no specifics recited in the claims that would differentiate the claimed functions from the prior arts.
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 PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights