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 action is in response to the communication filed on 10/18/2023. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of EP21305859.7, filed 6/23/2021. The assignee of record is MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION. The listed inventor(s) is/are: KHANFOUCI, Mourad.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-10 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include one of or both of “a)” and “b)” in the independent claim 1 and then the abbreviation is repeated in claims 8-10 referring to different elements which makes the claims unclear. For claim 9 which has only “b)” additional lack of clarity is added by not having an “a)” in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The “computer program” claims are not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Although the claim recites “a processing circuit”, the claim actually lacks the necessary physical articles/objects/elements/components/structure/hardware to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter.
Moreover, [a processing circuit does not imply a physical processor as known in the art. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation a processing module may be a software system], the invention or the body of the claim can be implemented via program or software per.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter as a whole fails to fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, patentable eligible category subject matter.
For more information regarding 35 U.S.C 101 please see MPEP 2106 and section of 2106 titled “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories: vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72.”
Examiner suggests coupling the processing circuit with sufficient structure such as a memory.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20180077023 A1, published 3/15/2018; hereinafter Zha).
For Claim 1, Zha teaches a method for use in routing of a traffic (Zha ¶ 0079, Fig. 3A) between at least one user equipment, UE, and a point of presence, PoP, of a Virtual Network Function, VNF (Zha ¶ 0311), placed in a network comprising a Multi-Access Edge Computing infrastructure comprising a plurality of routers (Zha ¶ 0111), at least some of which are linked and where at least one link links the plurality of routers with the PoP, the method comprising:
a) obtaining an indication of which of at least two possible paths for the traffic between the at least one UE to the PoP and passing via a router in the plurality of routers corresponds to a smaller estimate of an impact on a centrality of the PoP (Zha ¶ 0117, 0127, 0219 Fig. 35, please see screenshot of Zha Fig. 35 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
588
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
b) thereby enabling selection of the respective path for routing of the traffic between the at least one UE and the VNF (Zha ¶ 0124 Fig. 11 A-D, please see screenshot of Zha Fig. 11A below, thank you:
PNG
media_image2.png
596
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
For Claim 2, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the centrality is based on at least one of:
- betweenness centrality,
- closeness centrality,
- graph centrality, and
- stress centrality (Zha ¶ 0117).
For Claim 3, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the smaller estimate of the impact on the centrality is based on at least one of:
- a past topology,
- a current topology and
- an expected topology of the network (Zha ¶ 0097),
wherein the topology is configured to vary due to at least one of: a handover of a UE from one access point to another access point (Zha ¶ 0097); switching off of a router in the plurality of routers; and switching on of a router in the plurality of routers (Zha ¶ 0097).
For Claim 4, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, for the network further comprising a dynamic VNF orchestrator that may dynamically change a placement of the PoP in the network, the method comprising:
- obtaining a signal initiating a next change of the placement of the PoP with a delay which is based on the selection of the path with the smaller estimate of the impact on the centrality of the PoP (Zha ¶ 0136, 0161),
- thereby enabling transmission information necessary to run VNF from the previous PoP to the new PoP (Zha ¶ 0136, 0161).
For Claim 5, Zha teaches the method of claim 4, for the network further comprising a network statistics collector adapted to prepare network statistics, in which the dynamic VNF orchestrator is configured to retrieve the network statistics, wherein
- the delay is further based on the network statistics taking into account the traffic between the at least one UE and the VNF as routed along the selected path (Zha ¶ 0127).
For Claim 6, Zha teaches the method claim 1, wherein said obtaining the indication comprises generating the indication by comparing the estimates of the impacts on the centrality of the PoP (Zha ¶ 0127).
For Claim 7, Zha teaches the method of claim 6, comprising, for obtaining said indication in a), at least one of:
- obtaining indications of centralities of those of the plurality of routers which lie on at least one of at least two possible paths for the traffic between the at least one UE to the PoP (Zha ¶ 0117, 0127, 0194, 0219, Fig. 35); and
- receiving as an input, indications of accumulated dependencies of those of the plurality of routers which lie on at least one of at least two possible paths for the traffic between the at least one UE to the PoP (Zha ¶ 0117, 0127, 0194, 0219, Fig. 35).
For Claim 8, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said obtaining the indication in a) is performed at a node of the network different from the router, preferably at a Mobile Edge Computing, MEC, server (Zha ¶ 0111).
For Claim 9, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, after b), a transmission to the at least one router of the selected path, a signal for updating its routing scheme in accordance with the selection (Zha ¶ 0154).
For Claim 10, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said obtaining in a) comprises receiving the indication at an input of the router, preferably in a form of a signal updating a routing scheme at the router to use the selected path (Zha ¶ 0154).
For Claim 14, Zha teaches a device comprising a processing circuit for performing the method of claim 1 (See above mapping of claim 1, thank you).
For Claim 15, Zha teaches a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processing circuit, cause the processing circuit to carry out the method of claim 1 (See above mapping of claim 1, thank you).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha in view of Indukuri et al. (US 8976710 B2, published 3/10/2015; hereinafter Ind).
For Claim 11, Zha teaches the method of claim 2, Zha does not explicitly teach wherein the centrality is based on the betweenness centrality, and each of estimates of the impact on the centrality of the PoP due to selecting one of the at least two possible paths is calculated as a weighted sum of changes of accumulated dependencies of routers on the path.
However, Ind teaches wherein the centrality is based on the betweenness centrality, and each of estimates of the impact on the centrality of the PoP due to selecting one of the at least two possible paths is calculated as a weighted sum of changes of accumulated dependencies of routers on the path (Ind Col 5 Ln 15-56).
Ind and Zha are analogous art because they are both related to networking.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closeness centrality parameter value of Ind with the system of Zha because the closeness centrality parameter for a node reflects the ability of the node to access information through other network members (Ind Col 5 Ln 50-56).
For Claim 12, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, Zha does not explicitly teach wherein each of estimates of the impact on the centrality of the PoP due to selecting one of the at least two possible paths is calculated by an iterative method using a Brandes algorithm.
However, Ind teaches wherein each of estimates of the impact on the centrality of the PoP due to selecting one of the at least two possible paths is calculated by an iterative method using a Brandes algorithm (Ind Col 5 Ln 15-56).
Ind and Zha are analogous art because they are both related to networking.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closeness centrality parameter value of Ind with the system of Zha because the closeness centrality parameter for a node reflects the ability of the node to access information through other network members (Ind Col 5 Ln 50-56).
For Claim 13, Zha teaches the method of claim 1, Zha does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of routers include a set of intermediary routers comprising routers which are estimated to contribute more than a threshold to the centrality of the VNF PoP, and the smaller estimate of the impact on the centrality of the PoP is based on estimates of the changes in accumulated dependencies of at least some routers among said intermediary routers.
However, Ind teaches wherein the plurality of routers include a set of intermediary routers comprising routers which are estimated to contribute more than a threshold to the centrality of the VNF PoP, and the smaller estimate of the impact on the centrality of the PoP is based on estimates of the changes in accumulated dependencies of at least some routers among said intermediary routers (Ind Col 5 Ln 15-56).
Ind and Zha are analogous art because they are both related to networking.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closeness centrality parameter value of Ind with the system of Zha because the closeness centrality parameter for a node reflects the ability of the node to access information through other network members (Ind Col 5 Ln 50-56).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20200322182 A1, VIRTUAL CLOUD EXCHANGE SYSTEM AND METHOD
ii. US 20200014594 A1, ANALYTICS-DRIVEN DYNAMIC NETWORK DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION
iii. US 20170272380 A1, Virtual Network Function State Scaling
iv. US 20170171871 A1, DETERMINISTIC SERVICE CHAINING BETWEEN NFV-POP'S
v. US 20170031986 A1, Method And System For Providing Integrated Virtualized Database Management And Software Defined Network Topology
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446