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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukherjee et al. (US 11687355 B1), hereinafter Mukherjee.
Re. Claims 1 and 19, Mukherjee teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions for execution by one or more processors of a controller (Fig. 6, & Column 18, Line 61 - Memory 516 and persistent storage 518 are computer readable storage media, which can be inclusive on non-transitory computer readable storage media) and an apparatus of a controller in a logical computing architecture, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 6) to configure the apparatus to: receive a function request from an infrastructure orchestration function (Fig. 5 410, & Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure); configure, in a data-centric infrastructure (DCI), AT LEAST ONE OF a function- dedicated computing (FDC) function, a data plane (DP) function, and a function- dedicated network (FDN) function based on the function request (Column 2, Line 11 - operations performed by an orchestration entity configured to instantiate one or more virtual network functions in a cloud computing infrastructure that includes compute resources and storage resources. Examiner interprets the orchestration entity and the virtual network functions to be functionally similar to the DCI and FDN respectively. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “At least one of”); and after configuration of the AT LEAST ONE of the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function, transmit, to the infrastructure orchestration function, a response that indicates completion of the function request (Column 8, Line 29 - the VIM 114 notifies the NFVO 130 that the POD setup is complete, that is, that installation by the cloud control software 118 has completed); and memory configured to store the function request (Fig. 6).
Re. Claim 17, Mukherjee teaches an apparatus of an infrastructure orchestration function, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry to further configure the apparatus (Fig. 6) to transmit, to a controller, a function request (Fig. 5 410, & Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure. Examiner interprets that for a reception from an orchestration entity to occur, an orchestration function apparatus must have sent the received information.) to AT LEAST ONE OF: form or release a logical computing node in a data-centric infrastructure (DCI), and modify the logical computing node through AT LEAST ONE OF addition and removal of AT LEAST ONE of a function- dedicated computing (FDC) function, a data plane (DP) function, and a function-dedicated network (FDN) function to the logical computing node (Column 2, Line 11 - operations performed by an orchestration entity configured to instantiate one or more virtual network functions in a cloud computing infrastructure that includes compute resources and storage resources. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “at least one”); and receive, from the controller in response to transmission of the function request, a function response indicating completion of operations performed by the controller that are related to the function request (Column 8, Line 29 - the VIM 114 notifies the NFVO 130 that the POD setup is complete, that is, that installation by the cloud control software 118 has completed); and memory configured to store the function request (Fig. 6).
Re. Claims 2 and 20, Mukherjee teaches Claims 1 and 19.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein: the FDC function represents a physical computing unit (Fig. 6), the DP function represents a physical data storage and sharing unit (Fig. 6), and the FDN function represents an interconnect network function running on top of an optical network (Column 2, Line 12 - one or more virtual network functions in a cloud computing infrastructure).
Re. Claim 3, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to collect telemetry data (Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure).
Re. Claim 4, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to establish, maintain, and update logical computing nodes to meet service requirements through configuration of the AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function (Column 2, Line 23 - creating, based on the virtual network function descriptor file and the network services descriptor file, artifacts that are referenced when instantiating the virtual network function, the artifacts including an aggregation of servers corresponding to a virtual network capacity, virtual machine images, and network configurations. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “at least one of”).
Re. Claim 11, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein to reconfigure a logical computing node in the DCI, the processing circuitry is further configure the apparatus to: receive, from one of an infrastructure service consumer or the infrastructure orchestration function (Column 2, Line 11 - operations performed by an orchestration entity configured to instantiate one or more virtual network functions in a cloud computing infrastructure that includes compute resources and storage resources. Examiner interprets that if a configuration message can be sent, likewise a follow up configuration can be sent to reconfigure the function), a reconfiguration request that contains reconfiguration parameters for the logical computing node (Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure); reconfigure FDC, DP, and FDN functions based on the reconfiguration parameters (Column 9, Line 34 - The NFVO 130, at 318, sends a request to the VIM 114 to reconfigure one or more servers in the cloud computing infrastructure 110 according to the modifications for the VNF(s) to be on-boarded); and transmit, to the one of the infrastructure service consumer or the infrastructure orchestration function, a reconfiguration response that indicates that reconfiguration of the logical computing node is complete (Column 8, Line 29 - the VIM 114 notifies the NFVO 130 that the POD setup is complete, that is, that installation by the cloud control software 118 has completed).
Re. Claim 12, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein to add the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function to a logical computing node in the DCI, the processing circuitry is to further configure the apparatus to: receive, from the infrastructure orchestration function (Fig. 5 410, & Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure), an addition request to add the AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function based on at least one of a new workload or service request from an infrastructure service consumer or telemetry and a performance status report from the controller; add the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function based on the addition request (Column 2, Line 11 - operations performed by an orchestration entity configured to instantiate one or more virtual network functions in a cloud computing infrastructure that includes compute resources and storage resources. Examiner interprets that “configure” can be interpreted as adding further instances to the currently configured list of instances); and transmit, to the infrastructure orchestration function after addition of the AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function, a completion message that indicates that the addition of the at LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function is complete (Column 8, Line 29 - the VIM 114 notifies the NFVO 130 that the POD setup is complete, that is, that installation by the cloud control software 118 has completed).
Re. Claim 13, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein to remove the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function from a logical computing node in the DCI, the processing circuitry is to further configure the apparatus to: receive, from the infrastructure orchestration function (Fig. 5 410, & Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure), a removal request to remove the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function based on at least one of a new workload or service request from an infrastructure service consumer or telemetry and a performance status report from the controller (Column 2, Line 11 - operations performed by an orchestration entity configured to instantiate one or more virtual network functions in a cloud computing infrastructure that includes compute resources and storage resources. Examiner interprets that “operations” relating to “instantiation” can be interpreted as removing further instances to the currently configured list of instances); remove the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function based on the removal request, wherein removing the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function includes deallocating the at least one function from the logical computing node while maintaining other functions of the logical computing node (Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure, wherein the virtual network function descriptor file includes vendor-specific enhanced resource information associated with one or more configurations of the compute resources and/or storage resources. Examiner interprets that the configuration information provided to the orchestration entity can provide release information in its parameters and as such can be considered as a means of releasing a function node by which the orchestration entity would need to consider when creating the virtual network function); and transmit, to the infrastructure orchestration function after removal of the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function, a completion message that indicates that the removal of the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, or FDN function is complete (Column 8, Line 29 - the VIM 114 notifies the NFVO 130 that the POD setup is complete, that is, that installation by the cloud control software 118 has completed).
Re. Claim 14, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein the removal request comprises at least one of an identification of at least one of a targeted FDC and DP function for removal and an updated logical node structure after completion of removal of the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function (Column 7, Line 13 - Artifacts are a set of entities that are needed to bring up a VNF, such as a VM image is used to instantiate the VM. The artifact creation relates to what was done on the physical POD building step. & Column 7, Line 35 - The setup.yaml file 176, which goes to the VIM 114, is synchronized with the artifact creation. Examiner interprets that the restructuring of artifacts in the network function between each instantiation would likewise, upon the removal of a network function, update itself to the newest instance of the data structure).
Re. Claim 15, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein: the removal request comprises a service goal on the logical computing node, and the processing circuitry is to further configure the apparatus to determine which of the AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function to remove (Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure, wherein the virtual network function descriptor file includes vendor-specific enhanced resource information associated with one or more configurations of the compute resources and/or storage resources. Examiner interprets that the configuration information provided to the orchestration entity can provide removal information in its parameters and as such can be considered as a means of removal by which the orchestration entity would need to consider when creating the virtual network function. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) and organization of the logical computing node after completion of removal of the AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function (Column 7, Line 13 - Artifacts are a set of entities that are needed to bring up a VNF, such as a VM image is used to instantiate the VM. The artifact creation relates to what was done on the physical POD building step. & Column 7, Line 35 - The setup.yaml file 176, which goes to the VIM 114, is synchronized with the artifact creation. Examiner interprets that the restructuring of artifacts in the network function between each instantiation would likewise, upon the removal of a network function, update itself to the newest instance of the data structure. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Re. Claim 16, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Mukherjee further teaches wherein to release a logical computing node from the DCI, the processing circuitry is to further configure the apparatus to receive, from the infrastructure orchestration function (Fig. 5 410, & Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure), a release request to release the AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function based on a workload execution completion notification from an infrastructure service consumer, reconfigure FDC, DP, and FDN functions and release THE AT LEAST ONE OF the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function and the logical computing node based on the release request remove (Column 2, Line 14 - obtaining a virtual network function descriptor file that describes parameters of a virtual network function to be instantiated in the cloud computing infrastructure, and a network services descriptor file that defines networking parameters to be supported in the cloud computing infrastructure, wherein the virtual network function descriptor file includes vendor-specific enhanced resource information associated with one or more configurations of the compute resources and/or storage resources. Examiner interprets that the configuration information provided to the orchestration entity can provide release information in its parameters and as such can be considered as a means of releasing a function node by which the orchestration entity would need to consider when creating the virtual network function); and transmit, to the infrastructure orchestration function after release of the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function, a completion message that indicates that the release of the at least one of the FDC function, DP function, and FDN function is complete and the logical computing node is released (Column 8, Line 29 - the VIM 114 notifies the NFVO 130 that the POD setup is complete, that is, that installation by the cloud control software 118 has completed).
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Bernardos et al. (WO 2020185588 A1), hereinafter Bernardos.
Re. Claim 10, Mukherjee teaches Claim 1.
Yet, Mukherjee does not expressly teach wherein the processing circuitry is to further configure the apparatus to receive, from the infrastructure orchestration function, a subscription to availability and status of FDC, DP, and FDN functions in the DCI, and periodically transmit, to the infrastructure orchestration function, the availability and status of FDC, DP, and FDN functions in the DCI.
However, Bernardos expressly teaches wherein the processing circuitry is to further configure the apparatus to receive, from the infrastructure orchestration function, a subscription to availability and status of FDC, DP, and FDN functions in the DCI (¶0127 - an alert may (e.g., also) be used as (e.g., to setup a) check (e.g., determine, monitor, etc.) when radio quality of the link between fog nodes A and B goes below a threshold (e.g., which may indicate any of that the nodes may be moving away, and the link may fail)); and periodically transmit, to the infrastructure orchestration function, the availability and status of FDC, DP, and FDN functions in the DCI (¶0127 - This monitoring may be done by any of: periodically reporting by fog node C to the controller, autonomously reporting by fog node C; and (e.g., in the case of autonomously reporting, only) reporting if queried by the controller and/or by another fog agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Bernardos to the teaching of Mukherjee. The motivation for such would be to further improve efficiency within the network via monitoring function status as Bernardos provides a means to monitor and receive the status of functions within the DCI (Bernardos, ¶0127). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Examiner’s Comments
Re. Claims 5-9 and 18, Mukarjee teaches claims 1 and 17.
These above cited limitations are reliant on an alternate limitation that Examiner did not elect in their original rejection. Claims 5-6 and 18 refer specifically to the FDC function type, of which Examiner did not base his rejection upon. Additionally, Claims 7, 8, and 9 are dependent on claims 5 and 6, and would be rejected under a similar theory to other claims referred to within, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to Column 2, Line 11-Line 30. As such, examiner will not be rejecting the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, beginning on Page 9, that the prior art used is unreasonably broad and cannot be used for rejection, however Examiner respectfully disagrees on grounds found within the Applicant’s argument. In their argument, Applicant provides the standard for broadest reasonable interpretation as provided by the MPEP. During examination, claims are given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, while interpretation is performed in light of the specification, Examiners are tasked with only interpreting the language that is found within the claims, and not bringing unclaimed elements from the specification into the rejection. Applicant argues that Mukherjee describes a cloud computing infrastructure which is vastly different from the claimed data-centric infrastructure, however, this “data-centric infrastructure” (DCI) is not given any form of context or explanation within the language of the independent claims. DCI in this context is a system optimized to be centered around the efficiency and use of data, which is a reasonably broad interpretation of the term. As such, a cloud computing infrastructure that focuses on function forward data management, would fit within the broadest interpretation of a system optimized around data use. Further still, in their argument, Applicant states that a DCI would contain not just cloud information, but rather physical elements as well that are incorporated into the system. It appears that Applicant’s interpretation of the claims is narrower than the actual breadth of the claims as recited. Further still, Applicant argues that the interpretation is unreasonably broad, and then provides that the DCI as recited in the specification, not the claim language, would be understood to be broader than the cloud infrastructure provided by Mukherjee. As such, Examiner finds that due to the claim language of the independent claims not providing a bounds to the data-centric infrastructure, the disclosure found withing Mukherjee is sufficient to disclose a system which is focused on data management and use, which fits a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
Applicant further argues on Page 13 that Examiner is not permitted to elect, under broadest reasonable interpretation, not to examine dependent claims which rely on unelected claim limitations, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion and directs Applicant to MPEP 2111.04 II (“Contingent Limitations”) which says “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.” Additionally, Examiner has not forced an election upon the Applicant or cancelled claims in any capacity, rather has said that due to the broadest reasonable interpretation not requiring the consideration of those claims in order to finalize a rejection, the claims were not considered. In light of Applicant’s amendments, the ability to elect a single contingent limitation has not been removed, as the phrase “at least one of” can still be found throughout, which functions in the same manner as an “or” statement, regardless of the presence of “and” in the next clause. As such, Examiner maintains that Claims 5-9 and 15 are based on an alternate limitation that was not used to reject.
Finally, regarding the Applicant’s argument beginning on Page 15 against the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection under Mukherjee and Bernardos provided to Claim 10, Applicant argues that there is no reason for the two references to be combined. Examiner argues in response that the motivation for combining the two would be in order to improve efficiency within the network via monitoring function status as Bernardos provides a means to monitor and receive the status of functions within the DCI. The citation provided was intended to focus on the status alerts that were disclosed by Bernardos, rather than the fog nodes expressly. However, fog nodes are a structure utilized in Internet of Things (IoT) networking in order to improve efficiency between a cloud based server and the hardware based “things” being connected to the server, which provides an indicia of relatedness between the two references. A person having ordinary skill in the art, interested in improving efficiency within a DCI, would be able to look at these two references and find that adding an availability and status subscription and/or alert would be possible based on the alert provided by Bernardos. As such, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the two references are irrelevant to one another and maintains the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the above stated reasons, Examiner maintains the rejection on independent claims 1, 17, 19 and all claims depending therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rawlins et al. (US 7796608 B2) - Claims 1 and 5
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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights