DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites that it depends from the “method of claim 12” this is viewed as a typo and should have been “method of claim 16” as would be duplicate claim otherwise. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 and 12: The limitation of “determine an incorporation plan for the new NF software version”, as drafted, is a function thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 12: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Additionally, the claims recites additional elements of “configure the new NF software version based on a step of the incorporation plan to use the new NF software version to handle a portion of cases previously handled by an old NF software version” that fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “configure” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Further the claims recites additional elements of “receive a new network function (NF) software version” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity information to the judicial exception of merely receiving data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims, 1 and 12 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 12: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to,” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Additionally, the additional element of “configure the new NF software version based on a step of the incorporation plan to use the new NF software version to handle a portion of cases previously handled by an old NF software version” does not require any particular application of the recited configure and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements of “receive a new network function (NF) software version” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving data. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data where the receiving a new network function limitation is receiving data. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, mere instructions to apply an exception and merely receiving/transmitting data, do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 2, 13 and 17 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “compare operation of the new NF software version to a predetermined performance criterion” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Further the claims recite additional elements of “in response to the new NF software version meeting the predetermined performance criterion, increase or decrease usage of the new NF software version based on a next step or a previous step of the incorporation plan” which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “increasing or decreasing usage” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 2, 13 and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 13 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 13 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 3, 14 and 18 they recite additional elements of “cause the apparatus to increase usage of the new NF software version based on a next step of the incorporation plan comprises the processor to by incrementally increase increasing usage of the new NF software version until an old NF software version is no longer used” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 3, 14 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 14 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 14 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 19 they recite additional elements of “in response to the old NF software version no longer being used, initiate removal of the old NF software version” which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “initiate removal” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 4 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 20 they recite additional elements of “in response to the new NF software version meeting a predetermined underperformance criterion, decrease usage of the new NF software version based on the previous step of the incorporation plan” which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “decrease usage” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 5 and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 6 it recite additional elements of “decrease usage of the new NF software version based on the previous step of the incorporation plan by incrementally decreasing usage of the new NF software version until the new NF software version is no longer used” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 6 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 7 it recites additional abstract idea limitations of “to monitor operation of the new NF software version and monitor operation of the old NF software version” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 8 it recite additional elements of “wherein the predetermined performance criterion comprises a comparison of operation of the new NF software version to operation of the old NF software version” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 8 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 9 it recites additional elements of “wherein the portion of cases comprises user equipments (UEs) assigned to the new NF software version, subscription requests, service requests, notification requests, requests for any functionalities the NF may provide, or a combination thereof” that is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 10 it recite additional elements of “wherein the cases or UEs are assigned to the new NF software version based on a location, a parameter, a characteristic, an event, a predetermined condition or a combination thereof” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 10 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 11 it recites additional abstract idea limitations of “determine whether to incorporate the new NF software version” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 15 and 16: The limitation of “wherein an incorporation plan is determined for the new NF software version”, as drafted, is a function thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 15 and 16: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Additionally, the claims recites additional elements of “the new NF software version is configured based on a step of the incorporation plan to use the new NF software version to handle a portion of cases previously handled by an old NF software version” that fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “configured” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Further the claims recites additional elements of “transmit information indicating availability of a new network function (NF) software version” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity information to the judicial exception of merely transmitting data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims, 15 and 16 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 15 and 16: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to,” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Additionally, the additional element of “the new NF software version is configured based on a step of the incorporation plan to use the new NF software version to handle a portion of cases previously handled by an old NF software version” does not require any particular application of the recited configure and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements of “transmit information indicating availability of a new network function (NF) software version” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of transmitting data. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data where the transmit and indication of availability limitation is transmitting data. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, mere instructions to apply an exception and merely receiving/transmitting data, do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 15 and 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudumbai et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0192651 A1) and further in view of Westberg et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0409514 A1)
As to claims 1 and 12, Mudumbai discloses an apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising :at least one memory (Mudumbai [0155] lines 1-12); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to (Mudumbai [0155] lines 1-12):
receive a new network function (NF) software version (Mudumbai [0019] lines 1-4, [0025] lines 1-3, [0034] lines 2-8 and [0067] lines 1-6; which shows being able to update software deployed in a network environment when new/updated version of software are made available, viewed as received, where the software can include the performance of functions, where the specifics of new/update network function seen specifically disclosed below in the teachings of Westberg);
determine an incorporation plan for the new NF software version (Mudumbai [0018] lines 1-12, [0029] lines 1-7, [0034] lines 2-8 and [0067] lines 1-6; which shows being able to generate/determine a deployment/incorporation plan for deployment/incorporating the new/updated software version, where the specifics of new network function seen specifically disclosed below in the teachings of Westberg); and
configure the new NF software version based on a step of the incorporation plan to use the new NF software version to handle a portion of cases previously handled by an old NF software version (Mudumbai [0018] lines 1-12, [0029] lines 1-19, [0031] lines 1-13 and [0067] lines 1-6; which shows that the new/updated software version is deployed/integrated/configured for use according to the deployment plan, where as part of the deployment/incorporation of the update can include changes, deletions and additions to pervious software currently installed with new/updates version information, where the deployment/incorporation can be done in specific order and at specific times, viewed as individual steps where each individual deployment would handle a portion that was previous handled by the previous/old software version, where the specifics of new network function seen specifically disclosed below in the teachings of Westberg).
Mudumbai does not discloses the specifics of a new network function (NF) software version.
However, Westberg discloses the specifics of new network function (NF) software version (Westberg [0035] lines 7-15 and [0048] lines 1-9; which shows the specifics of the received/indicated update can includes new software with updated/new version of network function )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Westberg showing the specifics of software update including updated/new network functions into the software update deployment of Mudumbai for the purpose of increasing software update effectiveness so that is can update additional functionality including network functions, as taught by Westberg [0048] lines 1-9.
As to claim 15 and 16 Mudumbai disclose an apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (Mudumbai [0155] lines 1-12); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to (Mudumbai [0155] lines 1-12):
wherein an incorporation plan is determined for the new NF software version (Mudumbai [0018] lines 1-12, [0029] lines 1-7, [0034] lines 2-8 and [0067] lines 1-6; which shows being able to generate/determine a deployment/incorporation plan for deployment/incorporating the new/updated software version, where the specifics of new network function seen specifically disclosed below in the teachings of Westberg), and
the new NF software version is configured based on a step of the incorporation plan to use the new NF software version to handle a portion of cases previously handled by an old NF software version (Mudumbai [0018] lines 1-12, [0029] lines 1-19, [0031] lines 1-13 and [0067] lines 1-6; which shows that the new/updated software version is deployed/integrated/configured for use according to the deployment plan, where as part of the deployment/incorporation of the update can include changes, deletions and additions to pervious software currently installed with new/updates version information, where the deployment/incorporation can be done in specific order and at specific times, viewed as individual steps where each individual deployment would handle a portion that was previous handled by the previous/old software version, where the specifics of new network function seen specifically disclosed below in the teachings of Westberg).
Mudumbai does not specifically disclose transmit information indicating availability of a new network function (NF) software version.
However Westberg discloses transmit information indicating availability of a new network function (NF) software version, (Westberg [0035] lines 7-15 and [0048] lines 1-9; which shows the specifics of the received, and thus transmitted information, indicated update that can includes new software with updated/new version of network function is available)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Westberg showing the specifics of software update including updated/new network functions into the software update deployment of Mudumbai for the purpose of increasing software update effectiveness so that is can update additional functionality including network functions, as taught by Westberg [0048] lines 1-9.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudumbai and Westberg as applied to claims 1, and 12 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0019400 A1)
As to claims 2, 13 and 17 Mudumbai as modified by Westberg do not specifically disclose compare operation of the new NF software version to a predetermined performance criterion; and in response to the new NF software version meeting the predetermined performance criterion, increase or decrease usage of the new NF software version based on a next step or a previous step of the incorporation plan.
However, Zhao discloses compare operation of the new NF software version to a predetermined performance criterion; and in response to the new NF software version meeting the predetermined performance criterion, increase or decrease usage of the new NF software version based on a next step or a previous step of the incorporation plan (Zhao [0005] lines 1-7, [0007] lines 1-9, [0018] lines 1-12 and [0036] lines 7-19; which shows being able to monitor for one or more specified/predetermined performance metric for the feature update and if it performs successfully, viewed as meeting a predetermined performance criterion, being able to adjust/increase or decrease, the amount of users the update is deployed to according to the staged rollout/plan with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claims 3, 14 and 18 Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose, however, Zhao discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to increase usage of the new NF software version based on a next step of the incorporation plan by incrementally usage of the new NF software version until an old NF software version is no longer used (Zhao [0005] lines 1-7, [0007] lines 1-9, [0036] lines 7-19 and [0037] lines 1-6; which shows the step/iteratively deployment of the update based on the staged rollout plan to iteratively/incrementally increase the usage of the plan until update deployed to full set of user, viewed as old version no longer used with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claims 5 and 20 Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose, however, Zhao discloses in response to the new NF software version meeting a predetermined underperformance criterion, decrease usage of the new NF software version based on the previous step of the incorporation plan (Zhao [0005] lines 1-7, [0007] lines 1-9, [0018] lines 1-12, [0028] lines 1-9 and [0036] lines 7-19; which shows being able to monitor performance metric for the feature update and if performance criteria for a number of abnormal operation notification, viewed as type of underperformance criteria, can initiate a rollback of the update, viewed as decrease the usage of the new version to a previous step in the rollout/incorporation plan with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claim 6, Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose, however, Zhao discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to decrease usage of the new NF software version based on the previous step of the incorporation plan by incrementallywhich shows being able to monitor performance metric for the feature update and if performance criteria for a number of abnormal operation notification, viewed as type of underperformance criteria, can initiate a rollback/reversions of the update rollout, viewed as decrease the usage of the new version to a previous step in the rollout/incorporation plan, where the update system iteratively/incrementally performs the pushing the update, monitoring the performance and relocation of user thus if the monitored performance parameters would indicate rollback/reverting would incrementally decrease usage and not limited so can be decreased until the new version is no longer deployed/used with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claim 7, Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose, however, Zhao discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to monitor operation of the new NF software version and monitor operation of the old NF software version (Zhao [0005] lines 1-7, [0018] lines 1-12, [0025] lines 1-10 and [0029] lines ; which shows being able to monitor performance metric for the feature update, where the performance monitor is able to monitor/measure performance of those that have received the updated version and monitor of the performance of those still using the prior/old version of the software with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claim 8, Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose, however, Zhao discloses wherein the predetermined performance criterion comprises a comparison of operation of the new NF software version to operation of the old NF software version (Zhao [0005] lines 1-7, [0018] lines 1-12, [0025] lines 1-10 and [0029] lines ; which shows being able to monitor performance metric for the feature update, where the performance monitor is able to monitor/measure performance of those that have received the updated version and monitor of the performance of those still using the prior/old version of the software and being able to make statistical comparisons between the two population, the population using the new version and population using the old version, to determine a statistical metric from monitoring for use where the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claim 9, Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose, however, Zhao discloses wherein the portion of cases comprises user equipments (UEs) assigned to the new NF software version, subscription requests, service requests, notification requests, requests for any functionalities the NF may provide, or a combination thereof (Zhao [0016] lines 1-17, [0017] lines 5-9 and [0019] lines 1-13; which shows the updated application is pushed to a specific portion of user/devices that are associated with client device/user equipment where the update is pushed to a portion of those client devices/user equipment for the user/device identified/assigned to receive the application update/new version thus showing that portion of cases comprises at lease user equipment assigned to the new software version, where the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhao showing the specifics monitoring performance of an update in light of a deployment plan for rolling out the update into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of an update by being able to monitor performance of the update as it is being rolled out to be able to determine and react to negative impacts in performance before deployed and effecting all users, as taught by Zhao [0004] lines 8-19 and [0005] lines 1-6.
As to claim 10, Mudumbai discloses wherein the cases or UEs are assigned to the new NF software version based on a location, a parameter, a characteristic, an event, a predetermined condition or a combination thereof (Mudumbai [0018] lines 1-12, [0029] lines 1-7 and [0034] lines 2-8; which shows that in the generation of the deployment plan for deploying/assigning software update version to cluster/devices, where characteristics of the device cluster are taken into account for deployment/assignment of the updated software, thus showing that at least UEs/device cluster are assigned/deployed to the new/updated software version based on at least characteristics, where the specifics of user equipment are seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Zhao above and the specifics of a NF software version are seen disclosed above in the teachings of Westberg above).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudumbai, Westberg and Zhao as applied to claims 3, and 18 above, and further in view of Wei (Pub. No. US 2015/0149658 A1)
As to claims 4 and 19 Mudumbai as modified by Westberg and Zhao do not specifically disclose in response to the old NF software version no longer being used, initiate removal of the old NF software version.
However, Wei discloses in response to the old NF software version no longer being used, initiate removal of the old NF software version (Wei [0059] lines 1-5; which shows being able to in response to all CPU cores being updated with new software/program version, thus viewed as old version no longer used by any of the cores, delete/remove the old version of the program, with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Wei showing the specifics deleting old version of a program after new version fully deployed to all source into the deployment of the updated software version of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg and Zhao for the purpose of improving resource utilization by being able to remove for memory used programs and thus freeing up memory space, as taught by Wei [0059] lines 1-5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudumbai and Westberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fitzgerald et al. (Patent No. US 8,850,419 B1)
As to claim 11, Mudumbai as modified by Westberg does not specifically disclose determine whether to incorporate the new NF software version.
However, Fitzgerald discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine whether to incorporate the new NF software version (Fitzgerald Col. 18 lines 19-25; which shows being able to determine when an update to the application/new software version of the application should be applied/incorporated with the specifics of NF software version update is seen in the teachings of Westberg above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Fitzgerald showing the specifics of determining with an application update should be applied into the deployment plan for an update of Mudumbai as modified by Westberg for the purpose of improving efficient resource utilization by being able to take into account price of resource used during the update process when determining if the software update should be applied, as taught by Fitzgerald Col. 18 lines 6-17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights