DETAILED ACTION
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 office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 11/23/2025.
Claims 63-82 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 63, 70 and dependent claims 66-68, 73-75, 78, 80-81 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations. Claims 1-62 have been previously cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 63-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 63 in lines 3-4 recites “recognizing addition of said network function entity to a network entity”, which indicates that the network function entity has already been added. Later, claim 63 in lines 10-11 recites “initiating, … , addition of said network function entity”. It is unclear if the network function entity is added at the time it is recognized to be added or later when initiated to be added.
Claim 63 recites “valid task coordination entity responsible for a specific task”. It is unclear what is being referred by “valid” i.e. what is the difference between the valid task coordination entity in contrast to task coordination entity responsible for a specific task.
Claims 70 recite elements similar to claim 63 and have similar deficiency as claim 63. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 64-68 and 71-82 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further
defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
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 63-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post-Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 63 is directed to “adding network function entity to network entity composition as task coordination entity if a valid task coordination entity is not defined for specific task” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 63 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 70 recites an apparatus comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim Elements
i.
63. A method of a network function entity, the method comprising:
generic computing method
ii.
recognizing addition of said network function entity to a network entity composition,
mental process abstract idea
iii.
acquiring task coordination responsibility information with respect to said network entity composition,
information gathering
iv.
analyzing said task coordination responsibility information to see if said task coordination responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination entity responsible for a specific task, and
mental process abstract idea
v
initiating, if said task coordination responsibility information does not define the valid task coordination entity responsible for the specific task, addition of said network function entity as said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task.
mental process abstract idea
The overall process described by steps [ii], [iv] and [v] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [ii], [iv] and [v] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, claim 63 in step [ii] recites “recognizing addition of said network function entity to a network entity composition”, which is directed to combination of one and more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to broadest interpretation of claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim [iv] recites “analyzing said task coordination responsibility information to see if said task coordination responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination entity responsible for a specific task,”, which is also directed to combination of one and more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to broadest interpretation of claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 63 step [v] recites “initiating, if said task coordination responsibility information does not define the valid task coordination entity responsible for the specific task, addition of said network function entity as said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task”, which is directed to adding network function entity as task coordination responsible for said specific task if the valid task coordination responsible for specific task is missing. Initiation addition based on the determining if said task coordination entity responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination responsible for a specific task, is a combination of one and more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to broadest interpretation of claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, steps [ii], [iv] and [v] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 63 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claim 70 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 63 and 70 recite a judicial exception, analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 63 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 63 also recites additional limitations in steps [i], and [iii] . Claim 63 in step [i] recites method of a network function entity, which is directed to generic computing method, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 63 in step [iii] recites “acquiring task coordination responsibility information with respect to said network entity composition”, which is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements, which is considered insignificant extra solution activity and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) I. § 2106.05(g). The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 63 steps [i] and [iii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i] and [iii], alone or in combination, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 63 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claim 70 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 63 and 70 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Claim 63 step [i] recites a method for network function entity, which is directed to generic computing, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited elements from generic implementation in the combination. Additional claim elements recited in claim 63 steps [iii] is directed to acquiring information, according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements. As discussed above in step 2A prong two, information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea.
It has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”).
Thus, Claims 63 and 70 are directed to Mental Process abstract idea without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Dependent claim 64 recites “wherein in relation to said initiating, the method further comprises transmitting a new task coordination responsibility information record including information on said specific task and an identifier of said network function entity”, which is directed to information transmission, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As explained above, information transmission is considered insignificant extra solution activity and either alone or in combination don’t make the abstract idea patent eligible.
Dependent claim 65 recites “wherein said new task coordination responsibility information record is transmitted towards an unstructured data storage function entity, or said new task coordination responsibility information record is transmitted towards a network repository function entity”, which is directed to information transmission to a given destination, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As explained above, information transmission is considered insignificant extra solution activity and either alone or in combination don’t make the abstract idea patent eligible.
Dependent claim 66 recites “comparing, if said task coordination responsibility information defines a valid task coordination responsible for said specific task, a priority of said task coordination responsible for said specific task with a priority of said network function entity for said specific task, and initiating, if said priority of said network function entity for said specific task is higher than said priority of said task coordination responsible for said specific task, a replacement of said task coordination responsible for said specific task by said network function entity as a new task coordination responsible for said specific task” which is directed to comparing and replacing/reordering information and is a combination of one and more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to broadest interpretation of claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 67 recites “ comparing, if said task coordination responsibility information defines a valid task coordination responsible for said specific task, information on expiry of task coordination responsibility of said task coordination responsible for said specific task with a present point in time, and initiating, if said information on expiry of task coordination responsibility of said task coordination responsible for said specific task indicates that task coordination responsibility of said task coordination responsible for said specific task is expired at said present point in time, a replacement of said task coordination responsible for said specific task by said network function entity as a new task coordination responsible for said specific task”, which is directed to comparing and replacing/reordering information and is a combination of one and more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to broadest interpretation of claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 68 recites “determining availability of said task coordination responsible for said specific task, and initiating, if said task coordination responsible for said specific task is determined unavailable, a replacement of said task coordination responsible for said specific task by said network function entity as a new task coordination responsible for said specific task”, which is directed to comparing and replacing/reordering information and is a combination of one and more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to broadest interpretation of claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 69 recites “wherein in relation to said initiating said replacement, the method further comprises transmitting an update task coordination responsibility information record including information on said specific task and an identifier of said network function entity”, which is directed to information transmission, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As explained above, information transmission is considered insignificant extra solution activity and either alone or in combination don’t make the abstract idea patent eligible.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 71-82 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 63-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 63-82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar et al. (US 2016/0248860 A1, hereafter Dunbar) in view of Vermeulen et al. (US 10,367,676 B1, hereafter Vermeulen).
Dunbar and Vermeulen were cited in the last office action.
As per claim 63, Dunbar teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method of a network function entity ([0005] service function SF instances [0032] SF instances, implemented as VNF [0036] SFs, any type of network functions, IPS, LB, cache, QoS, WOC [0037] set of SFs), the method comprising:
recognizing addition of said network function entity ([0005] requesting registration of SF; receiving by the SF orchestrator, SF is registered [0034] registering, SFs [0037] register the SFs 150, set of SFs) to a network entity composition ([0031] virtualized network node functions, chained together, create network service [0035] fig. 1 plurality of SFs 150 [0036] service nodes, pool of instance of SF 150; [0042] fig. 2 SFs 251-253 [0047] fig. 3 VNF clusters 330-340 ),
acquiring task coordination responsibility information with respect to said network entity composition ([0037] SF orchestrator 110 SF instance catalog manager 112, obtain information associated with the SFs 150; SC manager 111 determines classification policy and coordinates with the SF instance catalog manager 112 to determine forwarding policy for the SC [0005] SF instance database [0007] SF catalog database DB [0034] SFs, construct SC, SC-enabled network, SFs, capabilities, location, configurability ; [0052] store SF associated information in SF DBs[0069] fig. 9 SF catalog DB 900 SF DB 435 [0070] fig. 10 SF instance DB 1000, SF DB 435),
analyzing said task coordination responsibility information ([0046] analyze SF request, selects SFs from the SF catalog DB i.e. analyzing the SF catalog DB as well; fig. 11 index the capability information in a SF catalog DB 1160 ) to see if said task coordination responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination entity responsible for a specific task, and
initiating, if said task coordination responsibility information does not define the valid task coordination entity responsible for the specific task, addition of said network function entity as said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task ([0005] SF, registered, storing location information, SF instance DB, capability information, policy supported by SF [0034] registering, SFs, in SC-enabled network, capability and location [0037] register the SFs, generates an SC or SF set [0043] VNF managers to register the SFs, capabilities [0057] register multiple SFs [0070] fig. 10 SF instance DB 1000 SF name 1020 SF Type 1030 supported service profile 1060 [0072] configuring SF, VNFs, generating SC to utilize SF, execution of SF 1250).
Dunbar, however, doesn’t specifically teach (implicit teachings [0043] [0058]) to see if said task coordination responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination responsible for a specific task.
Vermeulen, however, teaches to see if said task coordination responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination responsible for a specific task (col 18 lines 45-50 leader, expired lease, no current leader, leader role may be assignable to the requester col 19 lines 40-45 check whether the last known leader node of the distributed service has also failed; col 21 lines 8-20 become aware of a failure of the leader node; determines that the leader node has failed or doesn’t receive leadership information fig. 8 no other node is currently a leader 816-Yes; col 11 lines 40-45 failure of leader node, current leader node fails, col 8 lines 5-10 request, leader node, responsible for fulfilling one or more categories of service requirements, corresponding to a given client request, leader node, prepare and transmit one or more corresponding work requests to the worker nodes, col 1 lines 20-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Dunbar with the teachings of Vermeulen of determining if there is no other node is currently a leader or most recent leader has failed / expired lease / notification for leadership has not been received to improve efficiency and allow to see if said task coordination responsibility information does not define a valid task coordination responsible for a specific task to the method of Dunbar as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because supplementing the method of registering the SF for the SC as taught by Dunbar with the teachings of Vermeulen of assigning the leader in case there is no current leader to yield predictable result with reasonable expectation of success and improved efficiency.
As per claim 64, Dunbar teaches wherein in relation to said initiating, the method further comprises transmitting a new task coordination responsibility information record including information on said specific task and an identifier of said network function entity. ([0005] SF, registration, SF identification SF ID, location, capability [0070] SF instance DB, generated, SF orchestrator, based on the SF instance information of SFs, received from the VNF manager during registration fig. 10 SF name 1020 supported service profile 1060 SF type 1030).
As per claim 65, Dunbar teaches wherein said new task coordination responsibility information record is transmitted towards an unstructured data storage function entity, or said new task coordination responsibility information record is transmitted towards a network repository function entity ([0005] SF, registration, SF identification SF ID, location, capability [0070] SF instance DB, generated, SF orchestrator, based on the SF instance information of SFs, received from the VNF manager during registration fig. 10 SF name 1020 supported service profile 1060 SF type 1030).
As per claim 66, Vermeulen teaches comparing, if said task coordination responsibility information defines the valid task coordination entity responsible for said specific task, a priority of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task with a priority of said network function entity for said specific task (col 18 lines 33- next leadership assignment request, service node, different node is currently the leader, RIV of the current leader, col 4 lines 1-12 highest role indicator value corresponds to the leader col 6 lines 7-15 leader node, highest RIV value, at time T1 SN2 is leader), and initiating, if said priority of said network function entity for said specific task is higher than said priority of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task, a replacement of said task coordination responsible for said specific task by said network function entity as a new task coordination responsible for said specific task (col 18 lines 23-27 initialization, default role manager; col 6 lines 15-30 surviving node, new leader with RIV value 68 ).
As per claim 67, Dunbar teaches comparing, if said task coordination responsibility information defines the valid task coordination entity responsible for said specific task ([0070] fig. 10 SF name 1020 supported service profile 1060 [0005] SF, registered, storing location information, SF instance DB, capability information, policy supported by SF [0034] [0037] register the SFs, generates an SC or SF set [0043] [0057] [0072] configuring SF, VNFs, generating SC to utilize SF, execution of SF 1250 ), information on expiry of task coordination responsibility of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task with a present point in time ([0044] service, policies, predetermined time interval i.e. expiry time [0056] SF capability registration, VNF manager, capability of SF, contextual states maintained by SF, include time).
Vermeulen teaches remaining claim elements of initiating, if said information on expiry of task coordination responsibility of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task indicates that task coordination entity responsibility of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task is expired at said present point in time (col 18 lines 45-50 leader, expired lease, no current leader, leader role may be assignable to the requester), a replacement of said task coordination responsible for said specific task by said network function entity as a new task coordination responsible for said specific task (col 18 lines 45-50 leader role may be assignable to the requester; fig. 8 no other node is currently a leader 816-Yes- select next leadership 819).
As per claim 68, Vermeulen teaches determining availability of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task, and initiating, if said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task is determined unavailable, a replacement of said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task by said network function entity as a new task coordination entity responsible for said specific task (col 18 lines 45-50 leader, expired lease, no current leader, leader role may be assignable to the requester; fig. 8 no other node is currently a leader 816-Yes- select next leadership 819).
As per claim 69, Dunbar teaches wherein in relation to said initiating said replacement, the method further comprises transmitting an update task coordination responsibility information record including information on said specific task and an identifier of said network function entity ([0005] capability information message, SF identification information, SF type, identifying service type; capability update message, dynamic update of capability information of the SF, SF, action supported by the SF [0058] SF capability update, VNF manager, sends a capability update message to the SF, dynamic capability update).
Claim 70 recites an apparatus of a network function entity, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, and at least one interface configured for communication with at least another apparatus, the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code, being configured to cause the apparatus to perform elements similar to claim 63. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 71 recites in in relation to said initiating, the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code, being configured to cause the apparatus to perform elements similar to claim 64.
Claim 72 recites elements similar to claim 65. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 73 recites elements similar to claim 66. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 74 recites elements similar to claim 67. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 75 recites elements similar to claim 68. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 76 recites elements similar to claim 69. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 77 recites elements similar to claim 65 for update information. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 78, Vermeulen teaches wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code, being configured to cause the apparatus to perform:
transmitting, towards said task coordination entity responsible for said specific task, an indication that said task coordination responsible for said specific task is replaced by said network function entity as said new task coordination responsible for said specific task (col 9 lines 55-62 transfer or renewal of the leader role, DRM, notification regarding the decision e.g. indicating the identity of the new/re-assigned leader, provided to some or all of the other nodes).
As per claim 79, Dunbar teaches wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code, being configured to cause the apparatus to perform: receiving, from a network repository function entity or an unstructured data storage entity, information on a change of task coordination responsibility for said specific task ([0005]session start message, SF ID indicating that SF is registered, storing location information, SF instance DB, capability information, policy supported by SF [0034] [0037] [0043] VNF managers to register the SFs, capabilities [0057] register multiple SFs [0070] fig. 10 SF instance DB 1000 SF name 1020 SF Type 1030 supported service profile 1060 [0072] configuring SF, VNFs, generating SC to utilize SF, execution of SF 1250).
Vermeulen teaches remaining claim elements of change of task coordination responsibility (col 3 lines 15-20 a replacement leader may be appointed according to a role assignment policy).
As per claim 80, Dunbar teaches wherein said network function entity has registered as task coordination entity responsible for a first task ([0005] SF ID, SF registered).
Vermeulen teaches remaining claim elements of the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code, being configured to cause the apparatus to perform:
receiving, from a new task coordination entity responsible for said first task, an indication (col 9 lines 55-62 transfer or renewal of the leader role, DRM, notification regarding the decision e.g. indicating the identity of the new/re-assigned leader) that said network function entity is replaced by said new task coordination entity responsible for said first task as said new task coordination entity responsible for said first task (col 3 lines 15-20 a replacement leader may be appointed according to a role assignment policy).
As per claim 81, Dunbar teaches wherein an entry specific for a certain task of said task coordination responsibility information includes information on at least said certain task, an identifier of a task coordination entity responsible for said certain task, and a uniform resource identifier of said task coordination responsible for said certain task (fig. 10 SF instance database 1000 supported service profile 1060 SF name 1020 fig. 9 SF catalog DB 900 action 950 SF name 920 [0083] function_URL, function, called by SF).
Vermeulen teaches remaining claim elements of a priority of said task coordination entity responsible for said certain task (col 8 lines 55-65 role indicator value RIV, highest RIV node, leader), information on expiry of responsibility of said task coordination entity responsible for said certain task (col 4 lines 12-20 role assignment policy, leader role, assigned, lease with associated expiration time).
As per claim 82, Dunbar teaches wherein said network entity composition is one of a network function set ([0036] SFs, any type of network functions, FW service, IPS, LB, cache, QoS, and WOC service ), a network function service set ([0004] service chaining, service function, sequence of services), and a network function group acting as a redundant system.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The previous specification objections have been withdrawn.
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Applicant’s response filed on 11/23/2025, Applicant argues the following:
Claim 63 is not related to an abstract idea, and thus clearly cannot be held to be directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 63 recites features that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen or paper. for example, initiating addition of network function entity as the task coordination entity responsible for the specific task.
Claim 63 is not related to abstract idea because the recited method provides a solution for network function instance to act as a “delegate” for an NF set and accomplish a task on behalf of the NF set.
Applicant submits that the cited portions of Dunbar fail to disclose or suggest the feature of “acquiring task coordination responsibility information with respect to said network entity composition”.
Examiner has thoroughly considered Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully, find them unpersuasive for at least the following reasons:
With respect to point a: Examiner respectfully disagree. As explained above under 35 USC 101 abstract idea objection, independent claims recites elements that can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. For example, claim elements of recognizing addition of said network function entity to a network entity composition is observing /detecting if new network entity is added to the network and can be performed by human mind with the help ordinary computer. Also claim element of analyzing if valid task coordinator is defined in the information requires determining if an entity exists in a list or not, and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. therefore, claim 63 is directed to mental process abstract idea.
With respect to point b: Examiner respectfully disagree. Claim elements “initiating,…., addition …” is directed to adding the network entity to the task coordination responsibility information, and amounts to adding /updating the task coordination responsibility information and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Remaining claim elements of “if said task coordination responsibility information does not define the valid task coordination entity responsible for the specific task” is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Therefore, these claim elements are directed to mental process abstract idea.
With respect to point c: Applicant argument is directed to claim 63 providing a solution for network function instance to act as a delegate for an NF set and accomplish a task on behalf of the NF set. Examiner respectfully indicate that the claim 63 doesn’t specifically recite either “delegation” for a set of network functions, or accomplishing a task. Therefore, the amended independent claim 63 doesn’t specifically recites argued elements. Applicant is requested to amend the claim to include the argued elements in the claim to accomplish / execute the task after addition of network function entity to the network entity composition and task coordination responsibility information to overcome 35 USC 101 abstract idea.
With respect to point i.) Dunbar teaches service function (SF) registration mechanism and capability indexing including obtaining information associated with SFs 150 and service chain (SC) manager determination classification policy and coordinates with the SF instance catalog manager 112 to determine forwarding policy for SC, wherein the classification policy may include classification rules or flow criteria for data traffic to the SC, service associated with the SC and /or metadata associated with the SC / SF set ( [0037]). Dunbar also teaches VNF controller 310 obtains SF configurations, such as policies, profiles, and rules ([0047]) and is used for configuration / reconfiguration (0075]). Therefore, Dunbar teaches acquiring task coordination responsibility information with respect to said network entity composition as recited in the independent claims. Examiner request Applicant to further recites clearly what constitutes task coordination responsibility information. In addition, Vermeulen also teaches a concept of a leader node that is responsible for fulfilling one or more categories of service requirements. For example, leader node may receive service requests and prepare and transmit one or more corresponding work requests to the worker nodes, indicating tasks or operations to be performed to fulfill the service requests (col 8 lines 4-10) i.e. leader node is associated with meeting one or more service requirements. Vermeulen also teaches tracking of leader node or new leadership roles (col 6 lines 45-50) as well as receiving of leadership-related notifications periodically or lack of receiving the notification within an expected time window (col 21 lines 8-22), which also suggests that the leader node / associated services are available.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Li can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195