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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The reply filed on 05/26/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Remarks are only directed to the independent claims and fail to address any of the abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claim is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Applicant is required to supply the omission or correction to thereby provide a full response to the prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. An apparatus, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
extrapolate a first tenant profile and a first name-space ID from the first network ID, the first name-space ID indicating a first name-space located in a first containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process);
determine a first plurality of network access commands based at least in part upon the first tenant profile and the first name-space ID, the first plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
a memory (generic computing components), comprising:
one or more directories comprising access to a plurality of tenant profiles, each tenant profile of the plurality of tenant profiles being associated with one or more network functions (generic computing components); and
one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information); and
a processor (generic computing components) communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive a first request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions, the first request comprising a first network identifier (ID) (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
generate a first report comprising the first plurality of network access commands (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive a first request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions, the first request comprising a first network identifier (ID) (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
generate a first report comprising the first plurality of network access commands (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first containerized service cluster comprises one or more network components; each network component comprises a network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions; and the first name-space is associated with a corresponding plurality of network components (generic computing components).
Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first containerized service cluster comprises a plurality of network components; each network component comprises a network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions; and the first name-space is associated with the plurality of network components (generic computing components).
Claim 4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a second request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions, the second request comprising a second network ID (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
extrapolate a second tenant profile and a second name-space ID and a first slice-group ID from the second network ID (abstract idea mental process), wherein:
the second name-space ID indicates a second name-space located in a second containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process);
the first slice-group ID indicates a first slice group located in the second containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process);
the second containerized service cluster comprises one or more network components comprising a corresponding network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions (generic computing components); and
each network component is associated with a corresponding name-spaces and a corresponding slice group (generic computing components);
determine a second plurality of network access commands based at least in part upon the second tenant profile and the second name-space ID, the second plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the second name-space within the first slice group in the second containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process); and
generate a second report comprising the second plurality of network access commands (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a second request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions, the second request comprising a second network ID (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
extrapolate a second tenant profile and a second name-space ID from the second network ID, the second name-space ID indicating a second name-space located in a second containerized service cluster and a third containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process);
determine a second plurality of network access commands based at least in part upon the second tenant profile and the second name-space ID, the second plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the second name-space in the second containerized service cluster and the third containerized service cluster (abstract idea mental process); and
generate a second report comprising the second plurality of network access commands (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the second containerized service cluster comprises a first plurality of network components; the third containerized service cluster comprises a second plurality of network components, each network component of the second plurality of network components and the third plurality of network components comprising a corresponding network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions; and the second name-space is associated with the first plurality of network components and the second plurality of network components (generic computing components).
Claim 7. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the second containerized service cluster comprises a first portion of a plurality of network components; the third containerized service cluster comprises a second portion of the plurality of network components; and the second name-space comprises the plurality of network components (generic computing components).
Claim 8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to present the first report to a user equipment associated with the first tenant profile, the user equipment being configured to access the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster based at least in part upon the first plurality of network access commands in the first report (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Milton et al. (US 2017/0039242) (hereinafter Milton as previously cited) in view of
Malleni et al. (US 2022/0091868) (hereinafter Malleni as previously cited) in view of
Khare et al. (US 2022/0337558) (hereinafter Khare as previously cited) in view of
Moran et al. (US 2008/0151767) (hereinafter Moran as previously cited) in view of
Wakefield et al. (US 2015/0382177 as previously cited) in view of
Cloutman (US 2009/0296807 as previously cited).
As per claim 1, Milton primarily teaches the invention as claimed including an apparatus, comprising:
a memory (fig. 9, block 1020);
extrapolate a first tenant profile and a first name-space ID from the first network ID ([0075] create/generate user profile from user ID which is based on phone MAC address i.e., network ID and [0113] namespace device identifiers can be based on identifiers for network transmission);
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory (fig. 9, blocks 1010 and 1050);
determine a first plurality of network access commands based at least in part upon the first tenant profile and the first name-space ID (abstract network activity log data i.e., network access commands are associated with computing device profiles; [0115] network activity log data is associated with external namespace device identifiers; [0117] mapping between network activity log data and namespace).
Milton does not explicitly teach:
one or more directories comprising access to a plurality of tenant profiles, each tenant profile of the plurality of tenant profiles being associated with one or more network functions; and
one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements; and
receive a first request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions, the first request comprising a first network identifier (ID);
the first name-space ID indicating a first name-space located in a first containerized service cluster;
the first plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster; and
generate a first report comprising the first plurality of network access commands.
However, Malleni teaches:
the first name-space ID indicating a first name-space located in a first containerized service cluster ([0020] containers that perform a unified function may be grouped together in a container cluster that may be deployed together; [0034] code may execute inside container executing compute service and may generate the deploy namespace instructions for creating a new network namespace; and [0046] determine the namespace ID);
the first plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster ([0014]-[0015] namespaces generated by a compute service and created within a container are nested namespaces which are visible to and accessible by the container namespace).
Malleni and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni because it would provide for dynamic and efficient network configuration to maintain a current and consistent state of the network. This can represent a lightweight, faster approach to flow rule installation latency testing relative to booting a large number of VMs by estimating flow rule installation latency for a given workload (e.g., requiring deployment of a particular number of VMs) without booting any VMs.
Milton in view of Malleni does not explicitly teach:
one or more directories comprising access to a plurality of tenant profiles, each tenant profile of the plurality of tenant profiles being associated with one or more network functions; and
one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements; and
receive a first request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions, the first request comprising a first network identifier (ID);
generate a first report comprising the first plurality of network access commands.
However, Khare teaches receive a first request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions ([0005] receive a request for an access token from a network repository function in the first network, the access token to be used by a first network function in the first network to request a service from a second network function in a second network), the first request comprising a first network identifier (ID) ([0058] the token request includes information such as network function instance ID).
Khare and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare because it would provide a way for a first edge protection proxy in a first network to receive a request for an access token from a network repository function in the first network. The access token can be used by a first network function in the first network to request a service from a second network function in a second network. The first edge protection proxy validates the request based on configurations allowed to access services provided by networks different from the first network. If the validation of the request is successful, the first edge protection proxy transmits the request to a second edge protection proxy in the second network. The transmitted request comprises verified information concerning the first network function.
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare does not explicitly teach:
one or more directories comprising access to a plurality of tenant profiles, each tenant profile of the plurality of tenant profiles being associated with one or more network functions; and
one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements; and
generate a first report comprising the first plurality of network access commands.
However, Moran teaches generate a first report comprising the first plurality of network access commands ([0032] reports module may enable reports to be generated that are related to activities of users within the network management system. Reports module may enable the generation of other reports that may provide information about, for example, which network elements a particular user accessed, what commands were executed on a particular network element, and/or the like).
Moran and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran because it would provide a reports module and a web portal may which can provide a single interface to manage all activities associated with a network. The web portal can provide a graphical user interface (GUI) that enables a single access point to all network elements within a network such that users may execute commands on a network element, add, delete, or modify network element configurations, troubleshoot and resolve network problems, and/or backup and restore deleted configurations. The Web portal may also provide a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows an administrator, for example, to add, delete or modify user profiles of users and/or user groups of the network management system, track all actions performed by users of the network management system, send messages to users of the network management system, run reports based on information contained within the network management system, and/or create credentials and map users that may be permitted to access a network element.
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran does not explicitly teach:
one or more directories comprising access to a plurality of tenant profiles, each tenant profile of the plurality of tenant profiles being associated with one or more network functions; and
one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements.
However, Wakefield teaches one or more directories comprising access to a plurality of tenant profiles, each tenant profile of the plurality of tenant profiles being associated with one or more network functions ([0007]-[0008] subscriber profile data can be used to support network functions. Some network models use a centralized subscriber profile store as a service. The X.500 Directory, together with Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), provides a framework for a centralized subscriber profile store. The data held within an X.500 directory is structured as a tree of data objects, the Directory Information Tree (DIT). Subscriber profiles can be represented as sub trees within the DIT).
Wakefield and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield because it would provide a structure that enables subscriber information to be obtained reliably and efficiently. In order to meet capacity requirements, for certain deployments it is necessary to store information e.g. subscriber information across a plurality of nodes in a distributed manner. Each node is termed a Directory System Agent (DSA), and the DSAs cooperate to collectively provide the Directory service. Data held within the Directory is structured as a tree of data objects, known as a Directory Information Tree (DIT).
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield does not explicitly teach one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements.
However, Cloutman teaches one or more network access commands configured to provide access to one or more entitlements ([0015] send a corresponding command to allow action to be taken for instance indicating information relating to network access entitlement).
Cloutman and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman because it would provide for a portion of back porch intervals following trailing edges of a number of horizontal sync pulses to be significantly raised and lowered to improve the playability of the original signal without reducing the effectiveness of the copy protection of the copied signal.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski et al. (US 2024/0048449) (hereinafter Kwapniewski as previously cited).
As per claim 2 Milton further teaches the first name-space is associated with a corresponding plurality of network components ([0120] namespace may be mapped to one or more internal-namespace device identifiers).
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman do not explicitly teach wherein: the first containerized service cluster comprises one or more network components; each network component comprises a network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions.
However, Kwapniewski teaches wherein: the first containerized service cluster comprises one or more network components; each network component comprises a network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions ([0026] network functions may be grouped based on relationships of functions performed by the respective network functions or based on a cloud server device which instantiates the network functions and [0040] plural cloud devices).
Kwapniewski and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski because it would provide a way of identifying a set of network functions operative on a core network of a mobile communications system instantiated on a cloud network, identifying functional dependencies among respective network functions of the set of network functions, defining a sequence by which the set of network functions should be made unavailable prior to a maintenance event, wherein the defining the sequence is based on the functional dependencies, and deactivating respective network functions of the set of network functions according to the sequence.
As per claim 3, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski in view of Robitzsch (US 2024/0080265) (as previously cited) in view of Sharma Banjade et al. (US 2022/0116335) (hereinafter Sharma as previously cited).
As per claim 4, Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a second request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions (Khare ([0005] receive a request for an access token from a network repository function in the first network, the access token to be used by a first network function in the first network to request a service from a second network function in a second network), the second request comprising a second network ID (Khare [0058] the token request includes information such as network function instance ID);
extrapolate a second tenant profile and a second name-space ID from the second network ID (Milton [0075] create/generate user profile from user ID which is based on phone MAC address i.e., network ID and [0113] namespace device identifiers can be based on identifiers for network transmission), wherein:
the second name-space ID indicates a second name-space located in a second containerized service cluster (Malleni [0020] containers that perform a unified function may be grouped together in a container cluster that may be deployed together; [0034] code may execute inside container executing compute service and may generate the deploy namespace instructions for creating a new network namespace; and [0046] determine the namespace ID);
the second containerized service cluster comprises one or more network components comprising a corresponding network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions (Kwapniewski [0026] network functions may be grouped based on relationships of functions performed by the respective network functions or based on a cloud server device which instantiates the network functions and [0040] plural cloud devices); and
each network component is associated with a corresponding name-spaces (Milton [0120] namespace may be mapped to one or more internal-namespace device identifiers);
determine a second plurality of network access commands based at least in part upon the second tenant profile and the second name-space ID (Milton abstract network activity log data i.e., network access commands are associated with computing device profiles; [0115] network activity log data is associated with external namespace device identifiers; [0117] mapping between network activity log data and namespace); and
generate a second report comprising the second plurality of network access commands (Moran [0032] reports module may enable reports to be generated that are related to activities of users within the network management system. Reports module may enable the generation of other reports that may provide information about, for example, which network elements a particular user accessed, what commands were executed on a particular network element, and/or the like).
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski do not explicitly teach:
extrapolate a first slice-group ID from the second network ID;
the first slice-group ID indicates a first slice group located in the second containerized service cluster;
each network component is associated with a corresponding slice group;
the second plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the second name-space within the first slice group in the second containerized service cluster.
However, Robitzsch teaches:
extrapolate a first slice-group ID from the second network ID ([0085] a namespace may refer to, indicate, identify, label, define, etc., any type of information e.g., a group/collection of information, a database, one or more registers, pointers, binary data, etc. that includes and/or is associated with identifiers and/or indicators for any of services, service chains, client IDs, device IDs, server IDs, slice IDs, network IDs, etc. any of a mapping, a correspondence, an association, a linkage, a pairing, a pointer, a tabulation, etc., between any of the identifiers and/or indicators);
each network component is associated with a corresponding slice group ([0085] a namespace may refer to, indicate, identify, label, define, etc., any type of information e.g., a group/collection of information, a database, one or more registers, pointers, binary data, etc. that includes and/or is associated with identifiers and/or indicators for any of services, service chains, client IDs, device IDs, server IDs, slice IDs, network IDs, etc. any of a mapping, a correspondence, an association, a linkage, a pairing, a pointer, a tabulation, etc., between any of the identifiers and/or indicators).
Robitzsch and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski in view of Robitzsch because it would provide for a full duplex radio for which transmission and reception of some or all of the signals e.g., associated with particular subframes for both the transmission and downlink e.g., for reception may be concurrent and/or simultaneous. The full duplex radio may include an interference management unit to reduce and or substantially eliminate self-interference via either hardware or signal processing via a processor.
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski in view of Robitzsch do not explicitly teach:
the first slice-group ID indicates a first slice group located in the second containerized service cluster;
the second plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the second name-space within the first slice group in the second containerized service cluster.
However, Sharma teaches:
the first slice-group ID indicates a first slice group located in the second containerized service cluster ([0175] group context identifier may be used as a way to bundle resource slice identifiers; [0055] containers; and [0254] microservice cluster);
the second plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the second name-space within the first slice group in the second containerized service cluster ([0173] define slice context boundaries where a container technology limits the set of accessible operating system resources to a namespace coincident with the slice context).
Sharma and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Kwapniewski in view of Robitzsch in view of Sharma because it would provide for security services that are part of slice reconfiguration that adjusts capping of resources allocated to individual slices. Ring-fencing of resources for slice contexts guarantees a minimum level of resource availability so that a slice maintains a baseline level of resources despite a potential for resource exhaustion due to resource sharing underflow or denial of service. Virtual functions operating within a network slice context may be authenticated and verified to prevent insider attacks on the network slice resources that may result in increased robustness and decreased compromise of slice resources/data.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0307537) (hereinafter Chen as previously cited).
As per claim 5, Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a second request to access at least one network function of the one or more network functions (Khare [0005] receive a request for an access token from a network repository function in the first network, the access token to be used by a first network function in the first network to request a service from a second network function in a second network), the second request comprising a second network ID (Khare [0058] the token request includes information such as network function instance ID);
extrapolate a second tenant profile and a second name-space ID from the second network ID (Milton [0075] create/generate user profile from user ID which is based on phone MAC address i.e., network ID and [0113] namespace device identifiers can be based on identifiers for network transmission);
determine a second plurality of network access commands based at least in part upon the second tenant profile and the second name-space ID (Milton abstract network activity log data i.e., network access commands are associated with computing device profiles; [0115] network activity log data is associated with external namespace device identifiers; [0117] mapping between network activity log data and namespace), the second plurality of network access commands being configured to enable access to the second name-space in the second containerized service cluster and the third containerized service cluster (Malleni [0014]-[0015] namespaces generated by a compute service and created within a container are nested namespaces which are visible to and accessible by the container namespace); and
generate a second report comprising the second plurality of network access commands (Moran [0032] reports module may enable reports to be generated that are related to activities of users within the network management system. Reports module may enable the generation of other reports that may provide information about, for example, which network elements a particular user accessed, what commands were executed on a particular network element, and/or the like).
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman do not explicitly teach the second name-space ID indicating a second name-space located in a second containerized service cluster and a third containerized service cluster.
However, Chen teaches the second name-space ID indicating a second name-space located in a second containerized service cluster and a third containerized service cluster ([0046] an entire cluster of containers share a single namespace).
Chen and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Chen because it would provide a way of instantiating containers with a unified data volume which may save significant storage space on network storage nodes, while enabling efficient container re-instantiation as well as container and/or persistent storage migration. Additionally having the writable storage of a container or an entire cluster of containers share a single namespace provides significant ease of use and configuration benefits for snapshots and migrations. Network storage nodes may have significantly higher capacity than local storage on container hosts and may therefore be significantly less prone to running out of storage capacity and/or throughput rate due to spikes in usage by upper system layers. By enabling directory specific storage requirement requesting and provisioning within the same persistent volume, the benefits of mounted directories may be realized without the associated latency and snapshot synchronization issues that may manifest where separate external persistent storage volumes are provisioned for each mounted directory. In addition, network storage nodes may have robust backup and disaster recovery features unavailable on local storage. For example, a network storage node may be replicated in real-time across multiple data centers. Therefore the loss of one data center may be alleviated by copying the image files for containers executing in that data center as lower system layers to hosts in another data center and reattaching the persistent storages as upper system layers.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Chen in view of Kwapniewski.
As per claim 6, Milton further teaches the second name-space is associated with the first plurality of network components and the second plurality of network components ([0120] namespace may be mapped to one or more internal-namespace device identifiers).
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Chen do not explicitly teach the second containerized service cluster comprises a first plurality of network components; the third containerized service cluster comprises a second plurality of network components, each network component of the second plurality of network components and the third plurality of network components comprising a corresponding network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions.
However, Kwapniewski teaches the second containerized service cluster comprises a first plurality of network components; the third containerized service cluster comprises a second plurality of network components, each network component of the second plurality of network components and the third plurality of network components comprising a corresponding network processor configured to perform at least one network function of the one or more network functions ([0026] network functions may be grouped based on relationships of functions performed by the respective network functions or based on a cloud server device which instantiates the network functions and [0040] plural cloud devices).
Kwapniewski and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Chen in view of Kwapniewski because it would provide a way of identifying a set of network functions operative on a core network of a mobile communications system instantiated on a cloud network, identifying functional dependencies among respective network functions of the set of network functions, defining a sequence by which the set of network functions should be made unavailable prior to a maintenance event, wherein the defining the sequence is based on the functional dependencies, and deactivating respective network functions of the set of network functions according to the sequence.
As per claim 7, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Stenfelt et al. (US 9,197,714) (hereinafter Stenfelt) in view of Dong et al. (US 2021/0026781) (hereinafter Dong as previously cited).
As per claim 8, Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to present the first report to a user equipment associated with the first tenant profile, the user equipment being configured to access the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster based at least in part upon the first plurality of network access commands in the first report.
However, Stenfelt teaches wherein the processor is further configured to present the first report to a user equipment associated with the first tenant profile (claim 15 receiving from a user equipment (UE) a request to attach to the wireless communication network and assigning at least one IP address to the UE; reporting information about user statistics; forwarding the information about the user statistics; storing user profile information comprising the user statistics together with user identity information; receiving a request from an application server, the request identifying an IP address and requesting user profile information; providing user profile information deducible from said information about the user statistics information or from user identity information to the application server requesting the user profile information).
Stenfelt and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Stenfelt because it would provide a solution for handling customer activity when connecting to a wireless communication network and in particular for statistics of customer activity using the network. This is provided in a number of aspects such as reporting user profile statistics from deep packet inspection of data packets in a packet data network to a policy and charging rules function entity which in turn informs a subscriber usage profile repository that provides access to external application servers to the subscriber usage profile information after access control.
Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Stenfelt do not explicitly teach the user equipment being configured to access the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster based at least in part upon the first plurality of network access commands in the first report.
However, Dong teaches the user equipment being configured to access the first name-space in the first containerized service cluster based at least in part upon the first plurality of network access commands in the first report ([0038] in response to receiving a storage device mapping granularity reporting command, the storage controller in the storage device may operate to retrieve the namespace table that was stored in the storage subsystem storage controller and may then access the namespace identified in the storage device mapping granularity reporting command, retrieve the mapping granularity associated with that namespace, and transmit that mapping granularity to the host engine).
Dong and Milton are both concerned with computer networking and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Milton in view of Malleni in view of Khare in view of Moran in view of Wakefield in view of Cloutman in view of Stenfelt in view of Dong because it would provide for different namespaces provided by storage systems in storage devices which may be configured with different mapping granularities based on, for example, the data sizes of data that will be stored in those namespaces. As such, the host engine may attempt to optimize the data processing operations of storage controllers in the storage devices, reduce mapping table sizes in the storage devices, and/or provide a variety of other benefits. For example, hosts that process relatively larger sized data may configure a higher percentage of their accessible namespaces with relatively large mapping granularities, while hosts that process relatively smaller sized data may configure a higher percentage of their accessible namespaces with relatively small mapping granularities.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 12, Applicant argues that the identified abstract idea limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they are deeply tied to specific network routing and multi-tenant containerized architectures that operate far beyond human cognitive ability. The examiner respectfully traverses. Initially, it should be noted that nowhere in the claim is recited any “routing”. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims are eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims makes the claims eligible in view of the rejections made. The instant disclosure lacks any detailed explanation of extrapolating a containerized cluster name space ID from a network ID. Thus, a network ID can simply be considered a string of text and/or numerical values from which a subset string of text and/or numerical values can be extrapolated or derived representing the containerized cluster name space ID. In fact, fig. 2A, 2B, and 3 of the instant drawings illustrate how this concept can be performed mentally via pen and paper using tables and other representative data structures (i.e., a human can simply merely read data from a table and extrapolate data from it). Hence, Applicant’s own drawings illustrate how the step of extrapolating can be performed mentally via pen and paper. Similarly, a human could readily determine two network access commands based at least in part upon a profile which is merely interpreted as a representation of data and a name-space ID which can simply be considered a string of text and/or numerical values. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims provide an improvement by implementing a hierarchical multi-tenant architecture that uses a single network ID to directly reference a specific service and its associated entitlements. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is to directly reference a specific service and its associated entitlements. Hence, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to an abstract idea of referencing data. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea itself is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. In summary, it is readily apparent and clearly evident that Applicant has a deficient, erroneous, and improper understanding of the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea subject matter eligibility examination process. Throughout the Remarks Applicant conflates the individual steps involved in the process (i.e., Step 1, Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B), misconstrues the examiner’s analysis, and provides unpersuasive arguments that are clearly refuted by various portions of the MPEP. Applicant fails to interact with or address any of the examiner’s limitation-by-limitation analysis of the dependent claims provided in the rejection above. Even if an independent claim is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. The examiner highly encourages Applicant to review MPEP 2106 prior to submitting any subsequent response. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 12-13, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach a single network ID. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, it should be noted that the claims do not recite “a single network ID” or “a single application function identifier”, but instead recite “a first network identifier”. Milton in at least [0075] disclose creating/generating a user profile from a user ID which is based on a MAC address i.e., a network ID and [0113] disclose that namespace device identifiers can be based on identifiers for network transmission. Khare in at least [0058]-[0059] disclose that a token request includes information such as a network function instance ID and access authorization information includes one or more of a network identifier. Hence both Milton and Khare teach network identifiers and are combinable/modifiable. The claimed network identifier is broadly but reasonably interpreted as merely any combination of text string and/or numerical value having any number of characters, and as such, it is conceivable that the network identifier as taught by Milton is the same network identifier as Khare. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that Cloutman is non-analogous art. The examiner respectfully traverses. In response to Applicant’s argument that Cloutman is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of Applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the instant claims merely broadly recite “one or more entitlements” without providing any detail as to what the one or more entitlements refer. Cloutman in at least [0015] adequately teaches a network access entitlement. [0045] of the US PG PUB of the instant disclosure teaches that entitlements may be configured to provide one or more connectivity allowances e.g. access between the server and the network. This is sufficiently taught by Cloutman in at least [0015] with a network access entitlement. The claimed entitlement of the instant application is in the field of computer networking, and the entitlement taught by Cloutman is also a network access entitlement. Hence, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Cloutman is indeed analogous art to the instant application of computer networking. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 14, Applicant argues that the instant rejection relies upon improper hindsight reconstruction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Court affirmed a rejection of a detailed claim to a candy sucker shaped like a thumb on a stick based on thirteen prior art references) (see MPEP 2145). Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Wells (US 2021/0218750) disclose providing multiple namespaces.
Vohra et al. (US 2023/0229355) disclose immutable nodes in a container system.
Singh et al. (US 9,256,467) disclose managing and scheduling containers.
Shipkovenski et al. (US 2022/0053001) disclose automatic configuration of a containerized computing namespace.
Nair et al. (US 11,736,559) disclose providing a set of application slices within an application environment.
Lei et al. (US 2023/0102604) disclose slice service verification.
Lei et al. (US 2023/0269577) disclose a slice isolation method.
Jiang et al. (US 2019/0272205) disclose a container deployment method.
Guilbeault et al. (US 2019/0140971) disclose network slice management.
Colom Ikuno et al. (US 2023/0292100) disclose providing communication services to a user equipment.
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights