DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on September 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are amended. Claims 21 is newly added. Examiner withdraws claims objections, 35 USC 112(f) rejection, and 35 USC 101 rejection as necessary corrections were made to the claims.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection dated on 07/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim limitation/term of “a same IP address is assigned to same services” fails to provide adequate support. Examiner could not find any written description support for these latest amendment portions of the claims in the specification of the present application. Therefore, these amendments have no support in the specification. Necessary correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Negm discloses managing content deployment in a network includes: receiving, at network gateway device, a domain name service (DNS) request from a client device, the DNS request for content from a third-party provider; modifying, at the network gateway device, the DNS request to include location information indicative of a location of the client device; receiving, by a DNS resolver, the modified DNS request from the network gateway device; determining, by the DNS resolver, an address of the requested content based on a domain name included in the DNS request; receiving, by a deployment manager, the address of the requested content and the location information from the DNS resolver; accessing, by the deployment manager, a service status database indicating at which one or more edge platforms of the network the content is deployed; selecting, by the deployment manager, a first edge platform based on the location information and the service status database; and notifying, by the deployment manager, the client device of the first edge platform handling the requested content. Additionally, determining to service the second request using the first edge platform, transmitting, by the deployment manager an IP address of the first edge platform to the client device without the deployment manager communicating with the first edge device and without the deployment manager communicating with the third-party provider.
Fritsch discloses providing predictive search service in an edge node of a media service network, the media services network further including a back office that maintains persistent media service data, where the back-office controls placement of the edge node within the media service network. The method also includes receiving textual input from a client communicatively coupled to the media service network. The method also includes executing a predictive search within the edge node using the textual input and predictive search dictionary. The method also includes transmitting in real-time to the client predictive search results. The current edge note is configured to: receive a media service request from a client over a network; provide the media service request to a back office that persistently maintains media service data; configure the media service data for the client in such a way that the client need only display the media service data; and transmit the configured media service data to the client. The processor also executes instructions to determine if the latency exceeds a latency threshold; determine a new edge node in a network that is available to service requests for media service data from the client, the new edge node having a latency that does not exceed the latency threshold; and transfer the client to the new edge node. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection for the limitations are sustained for this claim.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 9, 14, and 19 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20-21 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed Negm (US Publication 2024/0073182) hereafter Negm, in view of Jean-Georges Fritsch (US Publication 2015/0288619) hereafter Fritsch, in further view of Krishnamurthy Bangalore (US Publication 2020/0296027) hereafter Bangalore.
As per claim 1, Negm discloses a computer system comprising: a plurality of edge systems, each of the plurality of edge systems comprising at least one first processor and at least one first memory and being configured to receive a program of a service, start the service by executing the program, and associate an IP address to the service (paragraphs 0007, 0013-15: providing service using edge platform to the client device); and a control apparatus comprising at least one second processor and at least one second memory storing a second program which, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to: manage IP addresses of services provided by the plurality of edge systems (paragraphs 0019, 0048: relayed request to transmit same IP address to fulfil transmission of service); assign, when receiving a first service generation request including a service name and a program corresponding to a service (paragraphs 0050-51, 0054), to send, each of the plurality of the edge systems, a second service generation request including the service name, the program, and the assigned IP address, the second service generation request causing a respective edge system of the plurality of edge systems to start the service and associate the IP address with the service (paragraphs 0054, 0065-66); select an edge system to which a client terminal is to be connected for the service (paragraph 0063, 0068: connect client device with an edge platform); and control a client-side gateway connected to the client terminal and an edge-side gateway connected to the selected edge system, such that the client terminal is able to communicate with the selected edge system when accessing the service (paragraphs 0036-38, 0068-70: communication between the edge platform, network gateway and client device). Although, Negm discloses, but fails to expressly discloses edge system to be connected to by a client terminal, for each of the services.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fritsch discloses the claimed limitation of edge system to be connected to by a client terminal, for each of the services (paragraphs 0004, 0053-54: controls the placement of media service request).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fritschs’ teaching of distributed service management with Negm. One would be motivated to communicate with appropriate edge server for any services to switch connection with minimal latency to provide seamless request redistribution with interruptions.
Although, Fritsch-Negm discloses deployment of applications and services within a network having plurality of edge platforms, but fail to expressly disclose a same IP address is assigned to same services.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bangalore discloses the claimed limitation of an IP address to the service, wherein a same IP address is assigned to same services (Fig. 6; paragraphs 0041-44, 0046).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fritsch-Negms’ teaching of distributed service management with Bangalore. One would be motivated to select a particular virtual edge system with all the update respective information to establish a connection in accordance with the particular IP address with respective common service to have the communication established with the client.
As per claim 2, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the second program, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to set tunnel connection between the client-side gateway connected to the client terminal and the edge-side gateway connected to the selected edge system (paragraphs 0038, 0052, 0070).
As per claim 3, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the second program, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to monitor loads or vacant resources of the plurality of edge systems; and select the edge system to which the client terminal is to be connected, based on the loads or vacant resources of the plurality of edge systems (paragraphs 0058, 0062, 0065).
As per claim 4, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the second program, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to preferentially select an edge system with a lower load or with more vacant resources (paragraphs 0058, 0062; Fritsch: paragraphs 0041-45).
As per claim 5, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the second program, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to continually monitor the loads or vacant resources of the plurality of edge systems; and select the edge system to which the client terminal is to be connected and control the client-side gateway based on a result of the monitoring (paragraphs 0058, 0062, 0069).
As per claim 6, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the second program, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to: monitor the loads or vacant resources of the plurality of edge systems each time a service is released; and select the edge system to which the client terminal is to be connected and the client-side gateway based on a result of the monitoring (paragraphs 0058, 0062, 0069).
As per claim 7, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the second program, when executed by the at least one second processor, causes the at least one second processor to notify the plurality of edge systems of the service and the IP address assigned to the service wherein and each of the plurality of edge systems is configured to perform deployment of the service and setting of the IP address for the service, based on the notification (paragraphs 0048, 0072, 0077).
As per claim 8, Negm discloses the computer system wherein each of the plurality of edge systems is a cluster system configured of a plurality of computers and providing the service by executing a containerized application (paragraphs 0007-8, 0018, 020-21: plurality of edge platforms).
Claim 9 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 10, and 12-13 are listed all the same elements of claims 2, and 5-6 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2, and 5-6 apply equally as well to claims 10, and 12-13 respectively.
As per claim 11, Negm discloses the control apparatus further comprising a monitoring unit configured to monitor loads or vacant resources of the plurality of edge systems; wherein the selection unit preferentially selects an edge system with a low load or with many vacant resources (paragraphs 0058, 0062, 0065).
Claim 14 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claim 15 is listed all the same elements of claim 2. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claim 2 apply equally as well to claim 15.
As per claim 16, Negm discloses the control method further comprising a monitoring step of monitoring loads or vacant resources of the plurality of edge systems continually or each time a service is released to the plurality of edge systems; wherein at the selection step, an edge system with a low load or with many vacant resources is preferentially selected (paragraphs 0058, 0062, 0065).
As per claim 17, Negm discloses the control method wherein, at the deployment step, the plurality of edge systems are notified of the service and the IP address assigned to the service, and control is performed so that deployment of the service and assignment of the IP address to the service are performed in the plurality of edge systems (paragraphs 0048, 0072, 0077).
Claim 18 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claim 19 is listed all the same elements of claim 2. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claim 2 apply equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 20 is listed all the similar limitation and elements of claim 1 but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
As per claim 21, Negm discloses the computer system wherein the program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to control, for each client-side gateway, a respective client-side gateway and a corresponding one of a plurality of edge-side gateways associated with the edge system selected for the respective client-side gateway, such that the client terminal is able to communicate with the selected edge system when accessing of the service (paragraphs 0058, 0062, 0065, 0069).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455