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 .
Application, submitted on 12/29/2023, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-8,10-18 and 21-23 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 and 05/06/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner as indicated below. However; Applicant has not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” in claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 18, 21, and 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
However, the specification does not disclose sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions of a 35 U.S.C. §112(f) limitation.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8,10-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “module” invokes 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 4, 7, 11-13, 15, 18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. US 2022/0369112 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Sharma) in view of BALMAKHTAR et al. US 2025/0097700 A1 (hereinafter referred to as BALMAKHTAR).
Referring to claim 1, Sharma discloses a method (fig.8) comprising:
receiving information representative of one or more actions taken by a user equipment device connected to a cloud wireless network ([0039], [0052]-[0054], fig.8, and [0070]) (Note: the wireless network receives activity information (representative of one or more actions taken) from a connected communication device 12; wherein the wireless network is implemented in one or more cloud servers);
selecting, based on the information, the user equipment device for monitoring network traffic originating from the user equipment device (fig.8 and [0070]-[0071]) (Note: the network selects the communication device for monitoring network traffic originating from the communication device based on received activity information);
in response to selecting the user equipment device, assigning the user equipment device to a network slice of the cloud wireless network, wherein the user equipment device is assigned to the network slice upon connecting to a radio tower of the cloud wireless network (fig.8 and [0071]-[0072]) (Note: the communication device is moved to a quarantine network slice of the cloud wireless network when a signaling indicates that the communication device is deemed to be compromised based on received activity information); and
routing network traffic associated with the network slice through a module (of the cloud wireless network that monitors the network traffic (fig.8 and [0072]-[0075]) (Note: the network traffic associated with quarantine network slice of the cloud wireless network is routed through a Data Analytics Function (DAF) that monitors the network traffic).
Sharma fails to disclose a cloud-native wireless network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, BALMAKHTAR discloses a cloud-native wireless network ([0037]) (Note: The NFs may be implemented as cloud-native network functions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to replace the cloud wireless network of Sharma with a cloud-native wireless network as taught by BALMAKHTAR. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to deliver superior scalability, agility, and cost-efficiency compared to traditional, hardware-dependent systems.
Referring to claim 2, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1. Sharma further discloses wherein receiving the information representative of one or more actions taken by the user equipment device comprises receiving feedback about the one or more actions taken by the user equipment device from an internet host ([0051]-[0056]) (Note: the reference discloses the communication device as an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device communicating with an IoT AS (internet host), wherein the activity information (representative of one or more actions taken) comprises receiving feedback about the communication device’s behavior).
Referring to claim 4, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1. Sharma discloses further discloses, in response to selecting the user equipment device, removing an assignment of the user equipment device to a network slice of the cloud-native wireless network that the user equipment device is currently assigned to (fig.8, and [0070]-[0072]) (Note: in response to detecting that the communication device is deemed to be compromised (abnormal behavior), the communication device is removed from a regular network slice 50 and assigned to the quarantine network slice 54).
Referring to claim 7, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1. Sharma further wherein the module of the cloud-native wireless network that monitors the network traffic also scrubs the network traffic ([0078], [0121]-[0122], and [025]) (Note: the Data Analytics Function (DAF) scrubs the network traffic to take corrective operations).
Referring to claim 11, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1. Sharma further discloses:
determining that the user equipment device no longer warrants monitoring network traffic originating from the user equipment device (fig.9 and [0073]-[0074]) (Note: the network determines that the communication device is no longer in a compromised condition when communication device updates its software or firmware or corrects its behavior);
in response to determining that the user equipment device no longer warrants monitoring network traffic originating from the user equipment device, removing an assignment of the user equipment device to the network slice (fig.9 and [0075]-[0076]) (Note: in response to determining that the communication device is updated and deems the compromised condition is cleared, the communication device is removed from the quarantine slice 54); and
assigning the user equipment device to another network slice (fig.9 and [0076]) (Note: the communication device 12 disconnects from the quarantine slice 54 and re-registers with the network 10, during which re-connection the AMF 34 and NSSF 32 cooperate to assign the communication device to the regular network slice 50).
Referring to claim 12, Sharma discloses a wireless network (fig.1, communication network (10)) comprising:
a cloud core network (fig.1, Core Network (CN) 18) comprising at least one computing device (fig.1) and a plurality of network slices (figs.2A-B, regular network slices 50 and quarantine network slices 54) ([0038]-[0039]);
a plurality of radio towers (fig.1, gNBs 22) configured to communicate with the cloud core network (fig.1); and
a module (fig.9, AS14/DAF18) configured to monitor network traffic ([0057], [0073], and [0075]),
wherein the at least one computing device of the cloud core network comprises:
a memory configured to store instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions ([0039]-[0042]) to perform operations comprising:
receiving information representative of one or more actions taken by a user equipment device connected to the wireless network ([0039], [0052]-[0054], fig.8, and [0070]) (Note: the wireless network receives activity information (representative of one or more actions taken) from a connected communication device 12),
selecting, based on the information, the user equipment device for monitoring network traffic originating from the user equipment device (fig.8 and [0070]-[0071]) (Note: the network selects the communication device for monitoring network traffic originating from the communication device based on received activity information);
in response to selecting the user equipment device, assigning the user equipment device to a network slice of the plurality of network slices, wherein the user equipment device is assigned to the network slice upon connecting to a radio tower of the plurality of radio towers (fig.8 and [0071]-[0072]) (Note: the communication device is moved to a quarantine network slice of the cloud wireless network when a signaling indicates that the communication device is deemed to be compromised based on received activity information); and
routing network traffic associated with the network slice through the module configured to monitor network traffic (fig.8 and [0072]-[0075]) (Note: the network traffic associated with quarantine network slice of the cloud wireless network is routed through a Data Analytics Function (DAF) that monitors the network traffic).
Sharma fails to disclose a cloud-native wireless network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, BALMAKHTAR discloses a cloud-native wireless network ([0037]) (Note: The NFs may be implemented as cloud-native network functions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to replace the cloud wireless network of Sharma with a cloud-native wireless network as taught by BALMAKHTAR. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to deliver superior scalability, agility, and cost-efficiency compared to traditional, hardware-dependent systems.
Referring to claim 13, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 2 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 15, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 4 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 18, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 7 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 22, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 11 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 23, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein. Sharma further discloses one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing instructions that are executed to perform operations ([0040]-[0042]).
Claims 3, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR, and further in view of Stockert et al. US 2021/0029216 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Stockert).
Referring to claim 3, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1. Sharma further discloses wherein receiving the information representative of one or more actions taken by the user equipment device comprises collecting data about the one or more actions taken by the user equipment device ([0052]-[0054], fig.8, and [0070]) (Note: the wireless network collects activity information from the communication device in order to detect a deviation by the communication device from its historic or characteristic communication activity).
Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR fails to disclose wherein selecting the user equipment device comprises determining, based on the collected data, that the one or more actions taken by the user equipment device are in violation of a contract.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stockert discloses wherein selecting the user equipment device comprises determining, based on the collected data, that the one or more actions taken by the user equipment device are in violation of a contract ([0062]-[0063]) (Note: based on data collected from the UE, the network determines whether actions taken by the UE are in violation of a governing contract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR with a concept wherein selecting the user equipment device comprises determining, based on the collected data, that the one or more actions taken by the user equipment device are in violation of a contract as taught by Stockert. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance security and mitigate risk.
Referring to claim 8, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1, except managing one or more characteristics of the network slice including a bandwidth of the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stockert discloses managing one or more characteristics of the network slice including a bandwidth of the network slice ([0062] and [0064]) (Note: the reference discloses managing a bandwidth of the network slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR with a concept of managing one or more characteristics of the network slice includes a bandwidth of the network slice as taught by Stockert. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an optimized resource utilization, a guaranteed Quality of Service (QoS), and an improved security by dedicating specific network capacity to tailored applications.
Referring to claim 14, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 3 is applicable herein.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR, and further in view of Stammers et al. US 2019/0026094 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Stammers).
Referring to claim 5, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein assigning the user equipment device to the network slice of the wireless network comprises assigning the user equipment device an identifier associated with the assigned network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stammers discloses wherein assigning the user equipment device to the network slice of the wireless network comprises assigning the user equipment device an identifier associated with the assigned network slice ([0019]-[0021]) (Note: the reference discloses a network slice identifier information about the selected network slice assigned to the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR with a concept wherein assigning the user equipment device to the network slice of the wireless network comprises assigning the user equipment device an identifier associated with the assigned network slice as taught by Stammers. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable enhanced traffic isolation, customized quality of service (QoS), and superior security.
Referring to claim 16, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 5 is applicable herein.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR, and further in view of AHN US 2022/0095175 A1.
Referring to claim 6, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the user equipment device remains assigned to the network slice even as the user equipment device connects to other radio towers of the cloud-native wireless network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, AHN discloses wherein the user equipment device remains assigned to the network slice even as the user equipment device connects to other radio towers of the wireless network ([0034]-[0035]) (Note: when the UE moves from the coverage of the source base station gNB1 to the coverage of the target base station gNB2, the service provided to the UE through slice 1 in the coverage of the source base station gNB1 is maintained in the slice 1 supported by the target base station gNB2. Thus, the user equipment device remains assigned to the network slice even as the user equipment device connects to other radio towers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR with a concept wherein the user equipment device remains assigned to the network slice even as the user equipment device connects to other radio towers of the wireless network as taught by AHN. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a continuity of a service provided to a UE even when a handover occurs (see AHN, [0020]).
Referring to claim 17, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 6 is applicable herein.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR, and further in Mishra et al. US 2023/0297433 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mishra).
Referring to claim 10, Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR discloses the method of claim 1. Sharma further discloses selecting additional user equipment devices for monitoring network traffic originating from the additional user equipment devices ([0101], [0121], and [0125]-[0126]).
Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR fails to disclose in response to selecting the additional user equipment devices, scaling resources of the wireless network that are used to operate the module of the cloud wireless network that monitors the network traffic.
However, Mishra discloses a concept of in response to selecting the additional user equipment devices, scaling resources of the wireless network that are used to operate the module of the cloud wireless network that monitors the network traffic ([0050]) (Note: the reference discloses scaling (increasing) resources when additional client devices access the service of the cloud wireless network that monitors the load of the service (network traffic)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Sharma in view of BALMAKHTAR with a concept wherein in response to selecting the additional user equipment devices, scaling resources of the wireless network that are used to operate the module of the cloud wireless network that monitors the network traffic as taught by Mishra. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve security, threat detection, and resource optimization.
Referring to claim 21, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 10 is applicable herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683