DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present amended application includes:
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-17 and 19-20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are being considered on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that:
Point 1 “claim 1 presently recites “Based at least on these amendments, Assignee's representative submits that the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the presently claimed combination of features recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 15”, "orchestrating deployment of a virtual machine on a node device that is not part of the set of node devices." A complete reading of Berry confirms that the above-noted features of claim 1 are not described in Berry for any purpose. Assignee's representative submits that Banerjee fails to cure the above noted deficiencies of Berry.".
In response, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection based on Berry et al. (US 2022/0206832) and Guim Bernat et al. (US 2021/0144517).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US 2022/0206832, Berry hereinafter) in view of Guim Bernat et al. (US 2021/0144517, Guim hereinafter).
As to claim 1, Berry teaches a method, comprising:
identifying, by an orchestration equipment (e.g., “orchestrator 303”, FIG. 3) comprising at least one processor (e.g., “Protocol processor 320”, FIG. 3, para 59, “ the orchestrator 303 and the virtualization system image configurator 110 each rely on a protocol processor (protocol processor 320.sub.1. Thus, the “protocol processor 320.sub.1” represent the processor), a cluster (e.g., para 39, “configured nodes situated in heterogeneous network environments can be selected, loaded with node-specific virtualization system software, and deployed so as to form a computing cluster.” Thus, the” nodes” , “selected” , “ deployed so as to form a computer cluster”, therefore the computing cluster represent the cluster ) , the cluster having been deployed using a set of node devices that support the cluster (e.g., see FIG. 1A and 1B, para 41, “The heterogeneous node pool 101 may comprise many different types of nodes” and “clusters formed of heterogeneous nodes”, “ to identify a group of candidate nodes that can be feasibly configured into a computing cluster.” in para 26 and 45) .
Berry teaches further deployment of a virtual machine on a node device that is not part of the set of node devices (e.g., see FIG. 7D, para 131, “the nodes of the distributed virtualization system can implement one or more user virtualized entities (e.g., VE 788.sub.111, . . . , VE 788.sub.11K, . . . , VE 788.sub.1M1, . . . , VE 788.sub.1MK), such as virtual machines (VMs)” , and a merged set of node devices to support the cluster (e.g., para 29, “the networked computing cluster can change autonomously (e.g., by adding a node “ and “additional nodes or different types of nodes are needed in order to construct the specified cluster, step 211 can transfer processing control to step 202, where additional candidate nodes can be identified.” In para 52),”.
Thus, the “adding “ coupled with the “node include the merging , therefore a merged set of node devices to support the cluster) .
However, Berry does not teach the cluster for a change in storage capacity, based on the change in the storage capacity and the set of node devices, generating a capacity specification applicable to orchestrating, by the orchestration equipment, changes to at least one of the set of node devices; and based on the capacity specification, orchestrating: deployment, by the orchestration equipment of the virtual machine on the node device that is not part of the set of node devices, receipt, by the orchestration equipment, of a status report from the node device, applicable to merging the virtual machine and the node device into the set of node devices, and based on the status report, a merger by the orchestration equipment , of the node device into the set of node devices , resulting in a merged set of node devices to support the cluster and achieve the change in storage capacity.
Guim teaches a cluster for a change in storage capacity , based on the change in the storage capacity and the set of node devices, generating a capacity specification applicable to orchestrating, by the orchestration equipment, changes to at least one of the set of node devices (e.g., e.g., see FIG. 21A and 21C, “ orchestration and management”, “storage”, para 260, “edge clusters” for “ multi-entity partitions may be, migrated, and orchestrated to accomplish necessary service objectives and operations”,
para 130 and 131, “provide the capability to associate features and resources within a system”, “to dynamically “bring” the compute resources to the workload.”, “manage (add/remove) product features and freely scale hardware capabilities and utilization up and down”, “provides the capability to tie deterministic orchestration and service management to the dynamic (or subscription based) activation of features without the need to interrupt running services,” and “the service change requirements to Workflow and resource level service entities, so they can, in-turn provide insights to their ability to fulfill.” In para 135.
Thus, to “ dynamically “bring” the compute resources “ coupled with “ orchestration and management”, “storage”, “the service change requirements to Workflow and resource level service entities”, “edge clusters”. Therefore , a cluster for a change in storage capacity , based on the change in the storage capacity and the set of node devices, generating a capacity specification applicable to orchestrating, by the orchestration equipment, changes to at least one of the set of node devices) ; and
based on the capacity specification, orchestrating deployment by the orchestration equipment of the virtual machine on the node device that is not part of the set of node devices, receipt, by the orchestration equipment, of a status report from the node device, applicable to merging the virtual machine and the node device into the set of node devices (e.g., see Figs 7 and 8 , para 135“provides the capability to tie deterministic orchestration and service management to the dynamic (or subscription based) activation of features without the need to interrupt running services,” and “the service change requirements to Workflow and resource level service entities, so they can, in-turn provide insights to their ability to fulfill.)”) , and based on the status report, based on the status report, a merger by the orchestration equipment , of the node device into the set of node devices , resulting in a merged set of node devices to support the cluster and achieve the change in storage capacity (e.g., see abstract, “service management (e.g., orchestration, connectivity, workload coordination), in edge computing deployments, such as by a plurality of edge nodes of an edge computing environment configured for executing workloads from among multiple tenants” and “system 442 that produce metric telemetry 440) to access and manage (add/remove) product features and freely scale hardware capabilities and utilization up and down. Furthermore, it provides the ability to provide deterministic feature assignments on a per-tenant basis. It also provides the capability to tie deterministic orchestration and service management to the dynamic (or subscription based) activation of features without the need to interrupt running services, client operations or by resetting or rebooting the system.” n para 131
[0145] In the example of FIG. 7, these virtual edge instances include: a first virtual edge 732, offered to a first tenant (Tenant 1), which offers a first combination of edge storage, computing, and services; and a second virtual edge 734, offering a second combination of edge storage, computing, and services. The virtual edge instances 732, 734 are distributed among the edge nodes 722, 724, and may include scenarios in which a request and response are fulfilled from the same or different edge nodes. The configuration of the edge nodes 722, 724 to operate in a distributed yet coordinated fashion occurs based on edge provisioning functions 750. The functionality of the edge nodes 722, 724 to provide coordinated operation for applications and services, among multiple tenants, occurs based on orchestration functions 760.
[0150] Within the edge cloud, a first edge node 820 (operated by a first owner) and a second edge node 830 (operated by a second owner) respectively operate an orchestrator to coordinate the execution of various applications within the virtual edge instances offered for respective tenants. The edge nodes 820, 830 are coordinated based on edge provisioning functions 850, while the operation of the various applications are coordinated with orchestration functions 840. Furthermore, the orchestrator may identify specific hardware features that are offered to one owner but hidden from a second owner, however offered across the ownership boundaries in order to ensure that services complete according to their SLA(s). ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Berry with those of Zhang because both references are directed to related systems addressing similar technical problems within the same field and seek to improve system performance, reliability, and efficiency.
Berry et al. disclose identifying, by orchestration equipment comprising at least one processor, a cluster for a change in storage capacity, the cluster having been deployed using a set of node devices that support the cluster while Guim et al. teaches the cluster for a change in storage capacity, based on the change in the storage capacity and the set of node devices, generating a capacity specification applicable to orchestrating, by the orchestration equipment, changes to at least one of the set of node devices; and based on the capacity specification.
Incorporating the teachings of Guim et al. into the system of Berry et al. would have been a predictable and logical modification, yielding improved operational robustness and efficiency without requiring undue experimentation.
Such a combination would merely involve the substitution or integration of known elements performing their established functions, as taught by Guim et al., into the system of Berry et al., consistent with design incentives and market demands for improved performance and scalability. Moreover, Guim et al. explicitly recognize benefits to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171) . —that would naturally be desirable in the system of Berry et al.
Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Berry et al. with Guim et al., and the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their known functions.
As to claim 2, Berry teaches further wherein deployment of the virtual machine comprises: based on the set of node devices and the cluster, generating metadata associated with the virtual machine; and creating the virtual machine comprising storing the metadata with the virtual machine to be accessible via the virtual machine (e.g., see FIG. 7A, para 101, wherein “a controller virtual machine instance “ with “data “, “metadata”. Thus, generating metadata associated with the virtual machine; and creating the virtual machine comprising storing the metadata with the virtual machine to be accessible via the virtual machine ).
However, Berry does not teach the orchestrator of the deployment. Guim teaches the orchestrator of deployment (e.g., “orchestration layer”, FIG. 4, para [0141] The deployment of a multi-stakeholder edge computing system may be arranged and orchestrated to enable the deployment of multiple services and virtual edge instances, among multiple edge nodes and subsystems, for use by multiple tenants and service providers and “The configuration of the edge nodes 722, 724 to operate in a distributed yet coordinated fashion occurs based on edge provisioning functions 750. The functionality of the edge nodes 722, 724 to provide coordinated operation for applications and services, among multiple tenants, occurs based on orchestration functions 760” in para 145).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 3. , Berry teaches wherein the metadata comprises a serial number generated for the virtual machine prior to deploying the virtual machine (e.g., para 131, “virtualized entities (e.g., VE 788.sub.111, . . . , VE 788.sub.11K, . . . , VE 788.sub.1M1, . . . , VE 788.sub.1MK),”) and “number or form of virtualized entities. “ in para 134) .
As to claim 4, Berry teaches further wherein the set of node devices comprises a range of network addresses to facilitate support of the cluster, the range of network addresses to accommodate merging the node device into the set of node devices (e.g., para 68, “ Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) identifies a subnet by means of the first address in the subnet (or “network address”) and a “network mask”, which specifies the range of available addresses in the subnet (with the first and last addresses reserved as the network address and broadcast address, respectively). ), . However, Berry does not teach and wherein the method further comprises: based on the capacity specification, expanding, by the orchestration equipment . Guim teaches wherein the method further comprises: based on the capacity specification, expanding, by the orchestration equipment ( see rejection of claim 1 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 5, Berry does not teach wherein the node device comprises a first node device, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the capacity specification, orchestrating deploying, by the orchestration equipment, deployment of a second node device different from the first node device, wherein merging the first node device into the set of node devices comprises asynchronously merging the first node device and the second node device into the set of node devices to support the cluster and achieve the change in storage capacity. However, Guim teaches based on the capacity specification, orchestrating deploying, by the orchestration equipment, deployment of a second node device different from the first node device, wherein merging the first node device into the set of node devices comprises asynchronously merging the first node device and the second node device into the set of node devices to support the cluster and achieve the change in storage capacity. ( see rejection of claim 1 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 6, Berry does not teach validating, by the orchestration equipment, the deployment, of the node device, and the change in storage capacity of the cluster as a result of merging the node device. However, Guim teaches validating, by the orchestration equipment, the deployment, of the node device, and the change in storage capacity of the cluster as a result of merging the node device. (e.g.,. para [0208] , wherein “An edge computing ecosystem may be optimized for minimizing risk differential as a way to manage software, firmware, and hardware feature updates. A three phased approach to workload deployment can be utilized: (1) Setup a workload validation environment that identifies the execution environment dependencies. This considers which software models are required to process the workload application. This dependency graph is identified as part of a validation environment setup.
Thus, validating, by the system, the deploying of the node device, and the change in storage capacity of the cluster as a result of merging the node device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 7, Berry does not teach before deploying the virtual machine on the node device, determining, by the orchestration equipment, that merging the node device into the set of node devices is not going to result in a limit on number of node devices, which are allowed to be included in the set of node devices, being exceeded. However, Guim teaches deploying the virtual machine on the node device, determining, by the orchestration equipment, that merging the node device into the set of node devices is not going to result in a limit on number of node devices, which are allowed to be included in the set of node devices, being exceeded ( see rejection of claim 1 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 8, Berry does not teach before deployment of the virtual machine on the node device, determining, by the orchestration equipment, that the set of node devices are functioning in accordance with a node specification . However, Guim teaches deployment of the virtual machine on the node device, determining, by the orchestration equipment, that the set of node devices are functioning in accordance with a node specification ( see FIG. 7 and 8, para 144, “FIGS. 7 and 8 illustrate deployment and orchestration for virtual edge configurations across an edge computing system operated among multiple edge nodes and multiple tenants.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 9, Berry does not teach wherein deploying the deployment of the virtual machine on the node device comprises creating a virtual network interface card to support the virtual machine. However, Guim teaches wherein deploying the deployment of the virtual machine on the node device comprises creating a virtual network interface card to support the virtual machine (e.g., para 229, 254, “the storage 2258 may be implemented via a solid-state disk drive (SSDD)” , “This architecture enables scaling network interfaces according to the expected data rate or network load for a particular virtual network function (VNF). This architecture also enables flexibility to map different network cards to compute nodes depending on the type of network processing happening at a given node.”. Thus, deploying the deployment of the virtual machine on the node device comprises creating a virtual network interface card to support the virtual machine).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 10, Berry does not teach wherein identifying the cluster for the change in storage capacity comprises: based on a capacity condition, monitoring the storage capacity of the cluster; and wherein the generating of the capacity specification resulted from the monitoring and the capacity condition. However, Guim teaches based on a capacity condition, monitoring the storage capacity of the cluster; and wherein the generating of the capacity specification resulted from the monitoring and the capacity condition (para [0139] Additionally, this service management framework is service aware and naturally balances the service delivery requirements with the capability and availability of the resources and the access for the data upload the data analytics systems. If the network transports degrade, fail or change to a higher cost or lower bandwidth function, service policy monitoring functions provide alternative analytics and service delivery mechanisms within the privacy or cost constraints of the user. With these features, the policies can trigger the invocation of analytics and dashboard services at the edge ensuring continuous service availability at reduced fidelity or granularity. Once network transports are re-established, regular data collection, upload and analytics services can resume.) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 11, see rejection of claims 1 and 6 above. Berry teaches further Storage equipment, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising (e.g., see claim 25. A system comprising: a storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions; and a processor that executes the sequence of instructions to cause the processor to perform acts comprising”). However, Berry does not teach receiving orchestration from orchestration equipment comprising a capacity specification that specifies storage resources to be allocated to support a virtual machine, wherein allocation of the storage resources results in allocated storage resources that support the virtual machine, based on the orchestration, in accordance with the orchestration, communicating results of a validating the allocated storage resources and the configuration to the orchestration equipment, and based on the communicating of the results,further orchestrating to merge the storage equipment into the group of storage equipment supporting the storage cluster. Guim teaches receiving orchestration from orchestration equipment comprising a capacity specification that specifies storage resources to be allocated to support a virtual machine, wherein allocation of the storage resources results in allocated storage resources that support the virtual machine, based on the orchestration(e.g., see FIG. 7 and 8), vin accordance with the orchestration, communicating results of a validating the allocated storage resources and the configuration to the orchestration equipment, and based on the communicating of the results,further orchestrating to merge the storage equipment into the group of storage equipment supporting the storage cluster ( see rejection of claim 6 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 12, Berry does not teach the capacity specification resulted from a generating of the capacity specification by the orchestration equipment based on a determination by the orchestration equipment that the storage cluster requested additional storage capacity beyond a current storage capacity of the storage cluster. However, Guim teaches the capacity specification resulted from a generating of the capacity specification by the orchestration equipment based on a determination by the orchestration equipment that the storage cluster requested additional storage capacity beyond a current storage capacity of the storage cluster. (e.g., para 131, “ provides the ability for the infrastructure and resource owner to empower the silicon component (e.g., components of a composed system 442 that produce metric telemetry 440) to access and manage (add/remove) product features and freely scale hardware capabilities and utilization up and down. Furthermore, it provides the ability to provide deterministic feature assignments on a per-tenant basis. It also provides the capability to tie deterministic orchestration and service management to the dynamic (or subscription based) activation of features without the need to interrupt running services, client operations or by resetting or rebooting the system.” and “to enable edge deployments to scale in capability as well as in multi-tenant hosting” in para 878. Thus , the capacity specification resulted from a generating of the capacity specification by the orchestration equipment based on a determination by the orchestration equipment that the storage cluster requested additional storage capacity beyond a current storage capacity of the storage cluster).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 13, Berry does not teach wherein the capacity specification was generated to achieve a specified change in a storage capacity of the storage cluster. However, Gui teaches wherein the capacity specification was generated to achieve a specified change in a storage capacity of the storage cluster ( e.g., see rejection of claim 1 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claim 14, Berry teaches wherein merging the storage equipment into the group of storage equipment supporting the storage cluster comprises integrating the virtual machine to support the storage cluster by performing a function of the storage cluster (e.g., see FIG. 1A, para 39, “heterogeneous network environments can be selected, loaded with node-specific virtualization system software, and deployed so as to form a computing cluster.”) .
As to claim 15, see rejection of claims 1 and 11 above. Berry teaches further a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of capacity scaling equipment, facilitate performance of operations, comprising (e.g., claim 13. A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts comprising). However, Berry does not teach capacity scaling orchestration equipment, based on a request for a change in storage capacity of a cluster deployed using node devices supporting the cluster, generating a capacity specification applicable to orchestrating the change in the storage capacity, orchestrating deployment. Guim teaches based on capacity scaling orchestration equipment, based on a request for a change in storage capacity of a cluster deployed using node devices supporting the cluster, generating a capacity specification applicable to orchestrating the change in the storage capacity, orchestrating deployment. (see rejection of claims 1 an and 14 above ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Berry by adopting the teachings of Guim to “reduce latency and increase throughput for endpoint users (client devices, user equipment, etc.) (see Guim , para 93) or “decreased physical restrictions 1312 (e.g., power, space, security, and thermal constraints), reduced management maintenance 1314, reuse capabilities for wired and wireless infrastructure 1316, and more complex orchestration 1318” (see Guim , para 171).
As to claims 16-20 see rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6-8 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights