CTNF 18/130,695 CTNF 88893 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Initial Examination Applicant's submission filed on 04/04/23 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13 and 15-16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Widegren (US 20020036983 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Widegren discloses an apparatus [fig. 1] , comprising: an interface to a radio access network (RAN) [fig. 1 “Network(s)” (i.e., RAN interface), par. 0005, 96] ; and a processor [fig. 1 (inherent)] to execute one or more instructions to cause the processor to: receive, from a core network, a request for an end-to-end managed connection, the end-to-end managed connection for an application executing on a server and an application executing on a client device (An app from an app server is initiated and controlled by end-to-end signaling (i.e., managed connection), where the connection is between a remote host (i.e., core network) and a UE (i.e., client) [par. 0097]) ; determine a policy for the end-to-end managed connection (Policy control mechanisms are used (i.e., determine policy) [par. 0097]) ; and apply one or more parameters of the policy to the end-to-end managed connection (Policy control mechanisms are used (i.e., apply policy) [par. 0097]). Regarding claim 8 , it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning. Regarding claim 15 , is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM- claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Widegren further discloses a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium [fig. 1 (inherent)] , the computer-readable storage medium including instructions [par. 0097]. Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16 , Widegren discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Widegren further discloses the processor to execute one or more instructions to cause the processor to: determine a network flow associated with the end-to-end managed connection, wherein the one or more parameters of the policy are to be applied to the network flow [par. 0096-97]. Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18 , Widegren discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Widegren further discloses the processor to execute one or more instructions to cause the processor to: receive, from the application executing on the client device and via the RAN, a packet (Filtering data flow in packet data network [par. 0097]) ; parse the packet to determine the packet is associated with the network flow [par. 0097-98] ; and apply the policy to the packet based on the determination that the packet is associated with the network flow [par. 0097-98]. Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20 , Widegren discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Widegren further discloses the processor to execute one or more instructions to cause the processor to: transmit, to the core network, an indication of the policy [par. 0130-132] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widegren as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Sun (US 20220006857 A1) . Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17 , Widegren discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Widegren discloses the processor to execute one or more instructions to cause the processor to: … applied to a plurality of attributes of the network flow and telemetry data for a plurality of compute nodes hosting the end-to-end managed connection; and … to the network flow , as discussed above, Widegren does not explicitly disclose modify the policy based on a machine learning algorithm; and apply the modified policy. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Sun. In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses: modify the policy based on a machine learning algorithm [par. 0054] ; and apply the modified policy [par. 0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Widegren with Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of flexibility for meeting different types of optimization policies [Sun par. 0054] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widegren as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Jeong (US 20240121049 A1) . Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19 , Widegren discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Widegren discloses the processor to execute one or more instructions to cause the processor to: … end-to-end managed connection; … end-to-end managed connection; and … end-to-end managed connection , as discussed above, Widegren does not explicitly disclose receive a request to terminate the … connection; terminate the … connection; and release one or more computing resources based on the termination of the … connection. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Jeong. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong discloses: receive a request to terminate the … connection [par. 0182] ; terminate the … connection [par. 0182] ; and release one or more computing resources based on the termination of the … connection [par. 0182]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Widegren with Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing unnecessary resource waste [Jeong par. 0182] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widegren as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of Faccin (US 20190020590 A1) . Regarding claims 7 and 14 , Widegren discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Widegren discloses wherein the one or more parameters of the policy are to comprise one or more of , as discussed above, Widegren does not explicitly disclose (i) parameters for the processor, (ii) parameters for a memory, (iii) parameters for an accelerator device, and (iv) parameters for a storage device. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Faccin. In the same field of endeavor, Faccin discloses: (i) parameters for the processor, (ii) parameters for a memory, (iii) parameters for an accelerator device, and (iv) parameters for a storage device (Mapping flow labels/descriptors (i.e., parameters for processor/memory/accelerator/storage) [par. 0184-185). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Widegren with Faccin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of aiding in network connection communication and control [Faccin par. 0002]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST). 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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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. /WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 8 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 9 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/130,695 Page 10 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights