DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This final office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 6/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, 17-18, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deodhar et al. (US 2020/0045116 A1, hereinafter Deodhar) in view of Agarwal et al. (US 2018/0019920 A1, hereinafter Agarwal).
Regarding claim 1, Deodhar teaches a network deployment configuration method, [Figure 1], wherein the method comprises comprising:
obtaining user intent, wherein the user intent is associated with deploying a user network, wherein the user intent comprises scenario information of the user network and service information of the user network, wherein the scenario information indicates a usage scenario corresponding to the user network, and wherein the service information indicates at least one network service deployed in the user network, [Par.[0042] describes receiving a user intent spec that includes application identifiers (service information), and access to resources/hardware configuration and other information (usage scenario); see also Figure 3A and associated description where the functionality is equivalent to scenario type and the service is equivalent to the service configuration using specific hardware/software for the service/scenario]; and
obtaining first network deployment configuration information of the user network based on the user intent, wherein the first network deployment configuration information comprises:
device information of at least one network device for planning the user network, [Par.[0023] describes types of devices/nodes in the topology],
a network topology based on the device information, [Abstract, Par.[0023]-[0024] describe a network topology based on devices deployed], and
a configuration parameter of the at least one network device based on the network topology and service information, [Figure 5 and associated description describes the process of service deployment using configuration template or other indicators such as order of services, locations of services and hardware configurations as described in Par.[0018]];
Deodhar does not explicitly teach wherein the device information comprises a device model, and a device quantity of the at least one network device (but these are implicit and for a more explicit evidence, Agarwal reference below is provided);
Agarwal in an analogous art teaches wherein the device information comprises a device model, and a device quantity of the at least one network device (and also teaches a network topology based on the device information and a configuration parameter of the at least one network device based on the network topology and service information), [Par.[0016] describes a topology corresponding to a plurality of network devices, type, model, version, functional capabilities/restrictions of the device for service configuration, quantity in Figure 4, 446 determined plurality of network devices, configuration element in Figure 3 and Par.[0018]];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to augment Deodhar to provide further details on devices/topology/configuration. The motivation/suggestion would have been to validate configuration of network devices when services are deployed, [Agarwal: Abstract, Par.[0002]].
Regarding claim 2, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 1, and Deodhar teaches wherein the scenario information comprises at least one of: a scenario type, a site parameter, a network user quantity, or a network device quantity, [Figure 3A and associated description where the functionality is equivalent to scenario type such as ‘disaster recovery’, Par.[0042] describes a configuration template which would be equivalent to ‘network device quantity’ or access to resources using license keys is equivalent to network device quantity, Figure 5, 508 shows service location which would be equivalent to ‘site parameter’; in general, claim limitations in the alternative are broad and vague and fit different interpretations].
Regarding claim 5, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 1, and Deodhar teaches wherein the obtaining user intent comprises:
outputting an initial user intent input interface, wherein the user intent input interface comprises a scenario information input region and a service information input region, [Par.[0048] describes user interface to receive user inputs indicating the intent of the user; the list of user indicators includes services (scenario) and resources/licenses (service) – dragging and dropping user inputs to virtual shopping cart]; and
obtaining scenario information that is input or selected through the scenario information input region and further obtaining service information input or selected through the service information input region, [in addition to Par.[0048], see Par.[0053] for intent inference template and user filling out requested information].
Regarding claim 6, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 5, and Deodhar teaches wherein the scenario information input region of the initial user intent input interface comprises a scenario type option; and wherein the obtaining the scenario information input and service information comprises: receiving a scenario type selected by a user through the scenario type option; displaying a corresponding scenario information option in the scenario information input region of the initial user intent input interface and displaying a corresponding service information option in the service information input region of the initial user intent input interface based on the scenario type; and obtaining scenario information input or selected through the scenario information option and service information that is input or selected through the service information option, [Par.[0048] describes user interface to receive user inputs indicating the intent of the user; the list of user indicators includes services (scenario) and resources/licenses (service) – dragging and dropping user inputs to virtual shopping cart; in addition to Par.[0048], see Par.[0053] for intent inference template and user filling out requested information; claim is verbose but simply describes the mechanics of using a template interface to fill out certain information which is well known in the art].
Regarding claim 7, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 5, and Deodhar teaches wherein the service information input region of the initial user intent input interface comprises a service information option; and wherein the obtaining scenario information input or selected through the scenario information input region and service information input or selected through the service information input region comprises: receiving service information that is input or selected by the user through the service information option; displaying a corresponding scenario information option in the scenario information input region of the initial user intent input interface based on the service information; and obtaining scenario information that is input or selected through the scenario information option., [Par.[0048] describes user interface to receive user inputs indicating the intent of the user; the list of user indicators includes services (scenario) and resources/licenses (service) – dragging and dropping user inputs to virtual shopping cart; in addition to Par.[0048], see Par.[0053] for intent inference template and user filling out requested information; claim is verbose but simply describes the mechanics of using a template interface to fill out certain information which is well known in the art].
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above, Figures 3, 4, 7, and 16 among others provide support for apparatus claim comprising processors and non-transitory CRM.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected as above.
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected as above.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected as above.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deodhar in view of Agarwal and further in view of Cao et al. (US 2022/0342649 A1, hereinafter Cao).
Regarding claim 3, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 1, and do not explicitly teach wherein the service information comprises at least one of: an office service, a guest service, an Internet of Things (IOT) service, a security protection service, or a production service;
Cao, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the service information comprises at least one of: an office service, a guest service, an Internet of Things (IOT) service, a security protection service, or a production service, [Par. [0053] describes a design template that includes intent specifications for a business level (e.g., retail, branch office, restaurant, factory, etc.)];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deodhar to include services at a business level to provide deployment plans. The motivation/suggestion would have been to configure and deploy edge site for any use case, [Cao: Title, Abstract, Par.[0053]].
Regarding claim 4, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 1, and do not explicitly teach wherein the user intent further comprises a networking quality tendency, and wherein the networking quality tendency indicates intent of a user for network quality and a network cost of the user network;
Cao, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the user intent further comprises a networking quality tendency, and wherein the networking quality tendency indicates intent of a user for network quality and a network cost of the user network, [Par. [0053] describes a design template that includes intent specifications for a business level (e.g., retail, branch office, restaurant, factory, etc.) and intent goals of SLA (quality) or cost];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deodhar to include SLA or cost to provide deployment plans. The motivation/suggestion would have been to configure and deploy edge site for any use case, [Cao: Title, Abstract, Par.[0053]].
Claims 13 and 14 correspond to claims 3 and 4, respectively and are rejected as above.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deodhar in view of Agarwal and in further view of Yan et al. (US 11,968,088 B1, hereinafter Yan).
Regarding claim 9, Deodhar and Agarwal teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 1, and Deodhar teaches wherein the obtaining first network deployment configuration information of the user network based on the user intent comprises: obtaining the first network deployment configuration information of the user network based on the scenario information, , the service information, [see claim 1 citations]; Deodhar does not explicitly teach a deployment configuration model, [claim 10 should be part of claim 9 to define deployment model is a AI-based model];
Yan, in an analogous art teaches, a deployment configuration model, [Title, Abstract, and Figure 4 describe an AI-based model for generating a deployment plan]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deodhar to include a deployment model based on AI/ML. The motivation/suggestion would have been to automate the process of translating intent into a deployment configuration, [Yan: Abstract].
Regarding claim 10, Deodhar, Agarwal, and Yan teach the network deployment configuration method according to claim 9, and Yan teaches further comprising performing, wherein before the obtaining the first network deployment configuration information of the user network based on the scenario information, the service information, and the deployment configuration model, the method further comprises:
obtaining second network deployment configuration information, wherein at least one of the second network deployment configuration information is device information and a configuration parameter of a user network after deployment, or the second network deployment configuration information is network deployment configuration information obtained by modification of the user based on third network deployment configuration information; and
obtaining the deployment configuration model based on the scenario information, the service information, the second network deployment configuration information, and a to-be- trained deployment configuration model, wherein the deployment configuration model belongs to an artificial intelligence model, [dependent claim is obvious over Deodhar in view of Yan for the same reasons as in claim 9; Figure 4 and associated description apply].
Claims 19 and 20 correspond to claims 9 and 10, respectively and are rejected as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to the independent claims appear to clarify the objections raised in the previous office action and are addressed explicitly with the new reference Agarwal. Amendment to the dependent claims where “the user” is amended to read “a user” has antecedence issues because a user is already referenced in the independent claims and referring to “a user” in the current amendment in the dependent claims does not follow what is already established in the independent claims. Examiner suggests that the Applicant incorporate the allowable subject matter identified in this and the previous action to expedite prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Wing Chan can be reached on 571 272 7493. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights