DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 8/17/2023.
Priority is claimed to PCT application PCT/CN2023/108823 (filed on 7/24/2023).
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 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: “cloud platform”, “entitlement service”, “entitlement root”, “entitlement proxy” and “entitlement agent” in claims 15 – 20.
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 – 8, 13 – 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 20120317648, hereinafter Brown).
As per claim 1, Brown discloses: A method of entitling software in a cloud, comprising:
receiving, from an entitlement agent of the software, an entitlement request at a first entitlement proxy of an entitlement service executing in the cloud; (Brown figure 5 and [0062]: “in step S1, a registration request is received from a requester (mapped to the claimed entitlement agent) on an entitlement broker (mapped to the claimed “entitlement proxy”) for registering a software product. In step S2, a deployment request is received from the requester on the entitlement broker to deploy the software product in the networked computing environment.”)
determining, by the entitlement proxy, an entitlement of the software in response to the entitlement request based on an entitlement specification, the entitlement specification provided by an entitlement root of the entitlement service; (Brown figure 5 and [0062]: “In step S3, an entitlement of the requester to deploy the software product in the networked computing environment is verified on the entitlement broker. In general, verification can comprise sending a verification request from the entitlement broker to an owner of the software product, and receiving a response to the verification request on the entitlement broker from the owner. Along these lines, the response can be based on a software license associated with the software product and/or a service level agreement between the requester and an owner of the software product.”)
and sending, by the entitlement proxy, the entitlement to the entitlement agent for application to the software. (Brown figure 5 and [0062]: “In step S4, the software product is deployed in the networked computing environment via the entitlement broker if the entitled is verified.”)
As per claim 6, Brown further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the software comprises a cloud service. (Brown [0018])
As per claim 7, Brown further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the software executes in an on-premises environment. (Brown [0032] – [0033])
As per claim 8, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is the system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the system variant of claims 6 or 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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) 2 – 4, 9 – 11 and 16 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Zhu et al (US 20230353455, hereinafter Zhu).
As per claim 2, Brown did not disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the entitlement root, a registration request from the entitlement agent; sending, by the entitlement root, an identity of the first entitlement proxy to the entitlement agent in response to the registration request.
However, Zhu teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the entitlement root, a registration request from the entitlement agent; sending, by the entitlement root, an identity of the first entitlement proxy to the entitlement agent in response to the registration request. (Zhu [0463] - [0464])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhu into that of Brown in order to receive, by the entitlement root, a registration request from the entitlement agent; sending, by the entitlement root, an identity of the first entitlement proxy to the entitlement agent in response to the registration request. Brown [0062] teaches an entitlement broker receives the registration and request for the entitlement, Zhu [0463] – [0464] teaches the a MEC orchestrator can select an appropriate MEC server for handling the request based on various conditions such as location of the application desired, the combination of prior art would enhance the overall appeals of all references by pairing an appropriate proxy to the request, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 3, the combination of Brown and Zhu further teach:
The method of claim 2, wherein the entitlement root selects the first entitlement proxy based on location of infrastructure on which the software executes. (Zhu [0463] - [0464])
As per claim 4, the combination of Brown and Zhu further teach:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving, by the entitlement root, a registration request from the entitlement agent; sending, by the entitlement root, an identity of a second entitlement proxy to the entitlement agent in response to the registration request; receiving, at the second entitlement proxy, the registration request from the entitlement agent; sending, by the second entitlement proxy, an identity of the first entitlement proxy based on a type of the software. (Zhu [0463] - [0465])
As per claim 9, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the system variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is the system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is the system variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, in view of Cline et al (US 20180198762, hereinafter Cline).
As per claim 5, Brown did not disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, at the first entitlement proxy, absence of the entitlement specification; sending, by the first entitlement proxy, a request for the entitlement specification to a second entitlement proxy or the entitlement root for the entitlement specification; and caching, at the first entitlement proxy, the entitlement specification as received from the second entitlement proxy or the entitlement root.
However, Cline teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, at the first entitlement proxy, absence of the entitlement specification; sending, by the first entitlement proxy, a request for the entitlement specification to a second entitlement proxy or the entitlement root for the entitlement specification; and caching, at the first entitlement proxy, the entitlement specification as received from the second entitlement proxy or the entitlement root. (Cline [0005])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cline into that of Brown in order to determine, at the first entitlement proxy, absence of the entitlement specification; sending, by the first entitlement proxy, a request for the entitlement specification to a second entitlement proxy or the entitlement root for the entitlement specification; and caching, at the first entitlement proxy, the entitlement specification as received from the second entitlement proxy or the entitlement root. Cline [0005] teaches using multiple proxy to handle encrypted and unencrypted requests, such combination would allow better security of the entitlement service and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 12, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the system variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stammers et al (US 20170164195) teaches “receiving at a network node associated with a mobile core network an authorization request from a network device, wherein the authorization request is received via an untrusted network; subsequent to the receiving, performing at the network node authorization of the network device; subsequent to the receiving, determining a preferred network access node for the network device, wherein the determining comprises accessing a node selection information repository containing static and dynamic information related to network access nodes and network access node groupings and wherein the static and dynamic information comprises at least one of resource usage, location, availability of mobility anchors, proximity of mobility anchors, handover opportunities, resiliency class, and time of day; and providing to the network device an initial authorization response comprising a response to the received authorization request, wherein the initial authorization response identifies the determined preferred network access node.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196