DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the request for continuation filed on March 17, 2026 in application 18/111,417.
Claims 1-15, 17-21 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended. Claim 16 is previously cancelled.
IDS submitted on February 17, 2023 was acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019).
In regard to claim 1, Johnston et al. teach a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining node data including one or more service-specific key performance indicator (KPI) values associated with a first service (weighted values for each address to control the flow of service requests, para. 47) for one or more nodes in a core network that offers a first service and a second service (VNF manager receives an indication of a capacity need for a telecommunication service, para. 40, fig. 5);
generating a service request graph using the node data (instantiates one or more micro-services for the telecommunication service and connect the instantiated micro-services, para. 41, fig. 5, 504, 506);
determining a first node in the one or more nodes that is redundant of a second node in the one or more nodes using the service request graph (a fast failover feature may be provided, for example, a database 416 of a first gateway may share information with a second database 428 of another gateway 404, para. 39).
Johnston et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first service is one of a file transfer service, or a call waiting service, in response to a determination that the second node satisfies a condition associate with a service-specific failure of the first service, performing a failover operation with respect to the first service on the second node to allow the first node to perform one or more operations of the first service in place of the second node, wherein performing the failover operation comprises transmitting an instruction to the second node that cause the second node to forward received request corresponding to the first service to the first node; and after performing the failover operation of the first service on the second node, continuing to perform the second service on the second node, wherein the second node continues to process requests associated with the second service while requests associated with the first service are forwarded to the first node.
Kotecha et al. teach of provisioning services such as (e.g., voice service, text message service, video call services) (fig. 8A, col. 15 lines 60-67) and determining that a failover condition has been satisfied (fig. 7, 710), determine that a service request associated with a service is to be forward to the backup user device and forward a service request associated with the service to the backup user device (fig. 7, col. 11 lines 5-67) and may indicate that a second type of service request is not to be forwarded to backup device (col. 13 lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al. by adding Kotecha et al. failover for mobile devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in determining a failover and forwarding a service request to a failover device (fig. 8A, col. 14 lines 50-67).
In regard to claim 4, Johnston et al. teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein generating a service request graph further comprises:
determining that the second node offers the first service and communicates with a third node in the one or more nodes that offers the first service using the node data (utilizing a micro-service system for providing voice communication services to a user … the network may include one or more micro-services to provide the voice processing service to the customer from any location within the network, para. 35); and
generating a path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph based on the determining that the second node and the third node offer the first service (various micro-services that are related to a particular service offered by the network may be connected through a network function virtualization infrastructure NFVi) to transmit communication or other messages between the micro-services, para. 31).
In regard to claim 5, Johnston et al. teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the node data comprises an indication of a request associated with the first service that is processed by the one or more nodes (the gateway may include any number of executing micro-services or databases associated with providing the voice process service to the customer 410. Gateway 402 may be located anywhere within the network … the various components of the voice processing service may be provided through micro-services executing on any number of compute devices located anywhere in the network, para. 36, 38).
In regard to claim 6, Johnston et al. teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the first node and the second node perform at least one same operations (providing flexibility of services to customers of a telecommunication network … by utilizing micro-services, the service may be provided to the customer from any location within the network such that the network can load balance service between many different locations and providing services to respond to changes in capacity demand of the network, para. 35).
*******************
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019) in further view of Uzelac et al. (US 2019/0349481).
In regard to claim 2, Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. does not explicitly teach but Uzelac et al. teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein generating a service request graph further comprises:
identifying that the second node and a third node in the one or more nodes processed a first request associated with the first service using the node data (trace a path of the voice communication session throughout the various devices and networks of the network environment, para. 24, fig. 1);
determining an order in which the second node and the third node processed the first request (the router table can be used to determine the next hops across each router in a network, para. 48); and
generating a path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph based on the determined order (a sequence of identifying a router and/or associated voice equipment, obtaining operating information, and obtaining a next position along the voice communication session path … in order to fully map out a path through the network, para. 49).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. by adding Uzelac et al. tracing a communications path over a network. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in determining a call path through the corresponding network (para. 46).
In regard to claim 3, Johnston et al. teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 2, wherein generating a service request graph further comprises: identifying that the first node processed a second request associated with the first service using the node data; and generating a second path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph that includes an identification of the first node (various micro-services that are related to a particular service offered by the network may be connected through a network function virtualization infrastructure NFVi) to transmit communication or other messages between the micro-services, para. 31).
*******************
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019) in further view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0102717).
In regard to claim 7, Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the first service is one of a voice call service, a conference call service, or a video call chat service.
Wu et al. teach of a microservice auto-scaling for achieving service level agreements where the microservice can be failover (para. 36) or auto-scaling (para. 37-40) for use in a communication device that provides voice, video and data communication (para. 48)
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. by adding Wu et al. microservice auto-scaling. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would provide microservices that may be efficiently run in container-based virtualization computing platform (para. 38).
*********************
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019) in further view of Rastogi et al. (US 2015/0006740).
In regard to claim 8, Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the first node comprises one of a session border controller (SBC), a call session control function (CSCF), a breakout gateway control function (BGCF), or a media gateway controller function (MGCP).
Rastogi et al. teach of a network boundary device comprise one or more of a firewall, Session Border Controller (SBC) or the like (para. 37).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. by adding Rastogi et al. Session Border Controller. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in providing establish and maintain security provisions of the enterprise network (para. 37).
*********************
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019) in further view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0225182).
In regard to claim 21, Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the service-specific failure of the first service is determined based at least in part on an upgrade associated with the first service.
Chen et al. teach of isolating and identifying faults in versioned microservices (para. 15-17).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. by adding Chen et al. fault identification in versioned microservices. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in isolating faults and consistently changing, and the container images are continuously updated (para. 15).
*********************
Claims 9 and 12-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019) in further view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0102717).
In regard to claim 9, Johnston et al. teach a non-transitory, computer-readable storage media comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to:
obtain node data including one or more service-specific key performance indicator (KPI) values associated with a first service (weighted values for each address to control the flow of service requests, para. 47) for one or more nodes in a core network that offers a first service and a second service (VNF manager receives an indication of a capacity need for a telecommunication service, para. 40, fig. 5);
generate a service request graph using the node data (instantiates one or more micro-services for the telecommunication service and connect the instantiated micro-services, para. 41, fig. 5, 504, 506);
determine a first node in the one or more nodes that is redundant of a second node in the one or more nodes using the service request graph (a fast failover feature may be provided, for example, a database 416 of a first gateway may share information with a second database 428 of another gateway 404, para. 39).
Johnston et al. does not explicitly teach in response to a determination that the second node satisfies a condition associate with a service-specific failure of the first service, performing a failover operation with respect to the first service on the second node to allow the first node to perform one or more operations of the first service in place of the second node, wherein performing the failover operation comprises transmitting an instruction to the second node that cause the second node to forward received request corresponding to the first service to the first node; and after performing the failover operation of the first service on the second node, continuing to perform a second service on the second node, wherein the second node continues to process requests associated with the second service while requests associated with the first service are forwarded to the first node.
Kotecha et al. teach of provisioning services such as (e.g., voice service, text message service, video call services) (fig. 8A, col. 15 lines 60-67) and determining that a failover condition has been satisfied (fig. 7, 710), determine that a service request associated with a service is to be forward to the backup user device and forward a service request associated with the service to the backup user device (fig. 7, col. 11 lines 5-67) and may indicate that a second type of service request is not to be forwarded to backup device (col. 13 lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al. by adding Kotecha et al. failover for mobile devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in determining a failover and forwarding a service request to a failover device (fig. 8A, col. 14 lines 50-67).
Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first node comprises one of a call session control function (CSCF), a breakout gateway control function (BGCF), or a media gateway controller function (MGCP).
Wu et al. teach of a network device 300 may represent or perform functionality of an appropriate network device such as, for example, a component of a cellular broadcast system wireless network, a processor, a server, a gateway, a node, a mobile switching center, a short message service center, a gateway mobile location center, a radio access network, a service mobile location center, or the like, (para. 40).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al., and Bodik et al. by adding Wu et al. microservice auto-scaling. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would provide microservices that may be efficiently run in container-based virtualization computing platform (para. 38).
In regard to claim 12, Johnston et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the computer system to:
determine that the second node offers the first service and communicates with a third node in the one or more nodes that offers the first service using the node data (utilizing a micro-service system for providing voice communication services to a user … the network may include one or more micro-services to provide the voice processing service to the customer from any location within the network, para. 35); and
generate a path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph based on the determining that the second node and the third node offer the first service (various micro-services that are related to a particular service offered by the network may be connected through a network function virtualization infrastructure NFVi) to transmit communication or other messages between the micro-services, para. 31).
In regard to claim 13, Johnston et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 9, wherein the node data comprises an indication of a request associated with the first service that is processed by the one or more nodes (the gateway may include any number of executing micro-services or databases associated with providing the voice process service to the customer 410. Gateway 402 may be located anywhere within the network … the various components of the voice processing service may be provided through micro-services executing on any number of compute devices located anywhere in the network, para. 36, 38).
In regard to claim 14, Johnston et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 9, wherein the first node and the second node perform at least one same operation (providing flexibility of services to customers of a telecommunication network … by utilizing micro-services, the service may be provided to the customer from any location within the network such that the network can load balance service between many different locations and providing services to respond to changes in capacity demand of the network, para. 35).
In regard to claim 15, Johnston et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 9, wherein the first service is one of a file transfer service, a voice call service, a call waiting service, a conference call service, a video chat service, or a short message service (SMS) (communication services utilizing a telecommunication network to receive a service such as voice processing, conferencing, web access, etc, para. 35).
In regard to claim 17, Johnston et al. teach a core network comprising: one or more nodes that each offer a first service; and a server comprising a processor in communication with the one or more nodes and configured with specific computer-executable instructions to:
obtain node data including one or more service-specific key performance indicator (KPI) values associated with a first service (weighted values for each address to control the flow of service requests, para. 47) for one or more nodes in a core network that offers a first service and a second service (VNF manager receives an indication of a capacity need for a telecommunication service, para. 40, fig. 5);
generate a service request graph using the node data (instantiates one or more micro-services for the telecommunication service and connect the instantiated micro-services, para. 41, fig. 5, 504, 506);
determine a first node in the one or more nodes that is redundant of a second node in the one or more nodes using the service request graph (a fast failover feature may be provided, for example, a database 416 of a first gateway may share information with a second database 428 of another gateway 404, para. 39).
Johnston et al. does not explicitly teach in response to a determination that the second node satisfies a condition associate with a service-specific failure of the first service, performing a failover operation with respect to the first service on the second node to allow the first node to perform one or more operations of the first service in place of the second node, wherein performing the failover operation comprises transmitting an instruction to the second node that cause the second node to forward received request corresponding to the first service to the first node; and after performing the failover of the first service on the second node, continuing to perform a second service on the second node, wherein the second node continues to process requests associated with the second service while requests associated with the first service are forwarded to the first node.
Kotecha et al. teach of provisioning services such as (e.g., voice service, text message service, video call services) (fig. 8A, col. 15 lines 60-67) and determining that a failover condition has been satisfied (fig. 7, 710), determine that a service request associated with a service is to be forward to the backup user device and forward a service request associated with the service to the backup user device (fig. 7, col. 11 lines 5-67) and may indicate that a second type of service request is not to be forwarded to backup device (col. 13 lines 1-13).
Refer to claim 9 for motivational statement.
Johnston et al. and Kotecha et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first node comprises one of a call session control function (CSCF), a breakout gateway control function (BGCF), or a media gateway controller function (MGCP).
Wu et al. teach of a network device 300 may represent or perform functionality of an appropriate network device such as, for example, a component of a cellular broadcast system wireless network, a processor, a server, a gateway, a node, a mobile switching center, a short message service center, a gateway mobile location center, a radio access network, a service mobile location center, or the like, (para. 40).
Refer to claim 9 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 20, Johnston et al. teach the core network of Claim 17, wherein the server is further configured with specific computer-executable instructions to:
determine that the second node offers the first service and communicates with a third node in the one or more nodes that offers the first service using the node data (utilizing a micro-service system for providing voice communication services to a user … the network may include one or more micro-services to provide the voice processing service to the customer from any location within the network, para. 35); and
generate a path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph based on the determining that the second node and the third node offer the first service (various micro-services that are related to a particular service offered by the network may be connected through a network function virtualization infrastructure NFVi) to transmit communication or other messages between the micro-services, para. 31).
*******************
Claims 10-11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2018/0146068) in further view of Kotecha et al. (US 9,848,019) in further view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0102717) in further view of Uzelac et al. (US 2019/0349481).
In regard to claim 10, Johnston et al., Kotecha et al. and Wu et al. does not explicitly teach but Uzelac et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the computer system to:
identify that the second node and a third node in the one or more nodes processed a first request associated with the first service using the node data (trace a path of the voice communication session throughout the various devices and networks of the network environment, para. 24, fig. 1);
determine an order in which the second node and the third node processed the first request (the router table can be used to determine the next hops across each router in a network, para. 48); and
generate a path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph based on the determined order (a sequence of identifying a router and/or associated voice equipment, obtaining operating information, and obtaining a next position along the voice communication session path … in order to fully map out a path through the network, para. 49).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Johnston et al., Kotecha et al. and Wu et al. by adding Uzelac et al. tracing a communications path over a network. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would aid in determining a call path through the corresponding network (para. 46).
In regard to claim 11, Johnston et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of Claim 10, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the computer system to: identify that the first node processed a second request associated with the first service using the node data; and generate a second path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph that includes an identification of the first node (various micro-services that are related to a particular service offered by the network may be connected through a network function virtualization infrastructure NFVi) to transmit communication or other messages between the micro-services, para. 31).
In regard to claim 18, Johnston et al., Kotecha et al. and Wu et al. does not explicitly teach but Uzelac et al. teach the core network of Claim 17, wherein the server is further configured with specific computer-executable instructions to:
identify that the second node and a third node in the one or more nodes processed a first request associated with the first service using the node data (trace a path of the voice communication session throughout the various devices and networks of the network environment, para. 24, fig. 1);
determine an order in which the second node and the third node processed the first request (the router table can be used to determine the next hops across each router in a network, para. 48); and
generate a path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph based on the determined order (a sequence of identifying a router and/or associated voice equipment, obtaining operating information, and obtaining a next position along the voice communication session path … in order to fully map out a path through the network, para. 49).
Refer to claim 10 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 19, Johnston et al. teach the core network of Claim 18, wherein the server is further configured with specific computer-executable instructions to: identify that the first node processed a second request associated with the first service using the node data; and generate a second path for the first service for inclusion in the service request graph that includes an identification of the first node (various micro-services that are related to a particular service offered by the network may be connected through a network function virtualization infrastructure NFVi) to transmit communication or other messages between the micro-services, para. 31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Anderson eta l. (US 2011/0126275) migrating services to recovery resources
Ahuja et al. (US 2018/0034839) microservice failover/load balancing
Jamjoom et al. (US 2016/0269482) microservice failover
************
Schneider et al. (US 2017/0195438) microservice with API calls and failover
************
Gulbrandsen et al. (US 10,645,147) file transfer microservice
Braverman et al. (US 10,417,043) file transfer
Joyce et al. (US 10,291,462) media gateway and microservice
Wu et al. (US 2019/0102717) microservice task fails and failover
Wang et al. (US 2018/0225183) file handle services
************
Ezra (US 10,389,584) migrating services
Anderson et al. (US 9,875,086) optimizing performance by microservices architecture
Wu et al. (US 2019/0102717) microservice auto-scaling for SLA
Nosov et al. (US 10,310,955) service level configuration
************
Tamilselvam et al. (US 2022/0113989) broken application into smaller modules
Phan-Quiroga et al. (US 2019/0233213) order sortation micro service
Keller et al. (US 2005/0192979) task graph
Forecast et al. (US 6,230,200) use directed acyclic graph for admission control and path routing of service client requests
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN TRUONG whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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, Thomas Ashish can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 HYPERLINK "mailto:Loan.truong@uspto.gov" Loan.truong@uspto.gov