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 amendment filed on June 10, 2026. Claims 24-27, 29-30, 39-40, and 42-43 are amended. Claims 44-50 is newly added. Claims 1-23, and 32-38 are canceled.
Claims 24-31, and 39-44 will be examined.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 45-50 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 45-50 provide non-transitory computer-readable medium to decode deployment requirements within a request from an application service provider (ASP) in an EASRequirements information object class (IOC), the EASRequirements IOC including software image information associated with instantiation of an edge application server (EAS) virtual network function (VNF), classified in H04L41/0895.
Since applicants have received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 45-50 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other 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 24-31, and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giust et al. (US Publication 2022/0303196) hereafter Giust, in view of GE et al. (US Publication 2023/0239343) hereafter GE, in further view of Gupta et al. (US Publication 2023/0269135) hereafter Gupta.
As per claim 24, Giust discloses an apparatus comprising: memory to store deployment requirements for instantiation of an edge application server (EAS) virtual network function (VNF) (paragraphs 0011, 0026-28); and processing circuitry, coupled with the memory, to: retrieve the deployment requirements from the memory, wherein the deployment requirements are received within a request from an application service provider (ASP) software image information associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF (paragraphs 11, 22, 39-40: deployment requirements including software image information for that of its application); software image information associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF, the software image information including a minimum disk attribute, a minimum random access memory (RAM) attribute, a role attribute, and a software image reference attribute; and instantiate the EAS VNF based on the deployment requirements (paragraph 39-40, 46, 60: initiates operations). Although, Giust discloses allowing multiple tenants to shared MEC system, but he fails to expressly disclose the deployment requirements are received within a request from an application service provider (ASP).
However, in the same field of endeavor, GE disclose the claimed limitations of the deployment requirements are received within a request from an application service provider (ASP) (paragraphs 0074-75, 0082: application user to receive service from application provider).
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 GEs’ teaching with Giust. One would be motivated to fulfill the service area requirements to enhancing the system.
Although, Giust-GE disclose allowing multiple tenants to shared MEC system in Edge application server with heterogenous application requirements, but fail to expressly disclose an EASRequirements information object class (IOC), the EASRequirements IOC including software image information associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF, the software image information including a minimum disk attribute, a minimum random access memory (RAM) attribute, a role attribute, and a software image reference attribute.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gupta elaborately discloses the claimed limitations of an EASRequirements information object class (IOC), the EASRequirements IOC including software image information associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF, the software image information including a minimum disk attribute, a minimum random access memory (RAM) attribute, a role attribute, and a software image reference attribute (paragraphs 4, 23, 36-37, 47).
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 Guptas’ teaching of deploying Edge Configuration Server from a consumer entity with teaching of GE-Giust. One would be motivated to fulfill Edge network application deployment requirements needed for EAS virtual network functions, thereby enhancing communication services.
As per claim 25, Giust discloses an apparatus wherein EASRequirements include a QoS requirements between a user equipment (UE) and the EAS VNF and a round-trip delay between the UE and the EAS VNF (paragraphs 22, 39-40). Although, Giust-GE discloses deployment request in a Edge application server, but fail to expressly disclose EASRequirements IOC further includes a QoS requirements that include a bidirectional data rate between a user equipment (UE) and the EAS VNF and a round-trip delay between the UE and the EAS VNF.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gupta discloses the claimed limitation of EASRequirements IOC further includes a QoS requirements that include a bidirectional data rate between a user equipment (UE) and the EAS VNF and a round-trip delay between the UE and the EAS VNF (paragraphs 3, 38, 49).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 25.
As per claim 26, Giust discloses the apparatus wherein the minimum RAM attribute is an integer value, disclose wherein the minimum RAM attribute is an integer value to indicate a minimum number of megabytes required for EAS software (paragraphs 0039, 0063).
As per claim 27, Giust discloses an apparatus wherein the deployment requirements include at least one of a geographical location attribute of a serving location, or a topological location attribute of the serving location (paragraphs 0036, 0047).
As per claim 28, Giust discloses an apparatus wherein the topological location attribute (claim 3, paragraphs 0055, 0061) but fails to expressly disclose wherein the topological location attribute includes a next-generation NodeB (gNB) identifier list associated with one or more cell identifiers for the serving location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, GE discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the topological location attribute includes a next-generation NodeB (gNB) identifier list associated with one or more cell identifiers for the serving location (paragraphs 0113, 0124).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 24 applies equally as well to claim 28.
As per claim 29, Giust discloses an apparatus wherein the topological location attribute includes at least one of: a tracking area identifier list associated with one or more tracking area identifiers for the serving location; and a serving public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier associated with the serving location (paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0047-49).
As per claim 30, Giust discloses an apparatus, wherein at least one of: the geographical location attribute includes a latitude value and a longitude value; and the geographical location attribute includes a civic location attribute of the serving location (paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0047-49).
As per claim 31, Giust discloses an apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises an edge computing service provider (ECSP) management system or portion thereof (paragraphs 0011, 0028).
As per claim 39, Giust discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure an edge computing service provider (ECSP) management system to: receive, from an application service provider (ASP), a request for instantiation of an edge application server (EAS) virtual network function (VNF) deployment requirements associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF (paragraphs 0011, 0022, 039-40), wherein the deployment requirements comprise at least one of a geographical location attribute of a serving location or a topological location attribute of the serving location (paragraphs 0036, 0047-49); and instantiate the EAS VNF based on the deployment requirements. Although, Giust discloses allowing multiple tenants to shared MEC system, but he fails to expressly disclose from an application service provider (ASP), a request for instantiation of an edge application server (EAS) (paragraph 0060: initiates operations).
However, in the same field of endeavor, GE disclose the claimed limitation of from an application service provider (ASP), a request for instantiation of an edge application server (paragraphs 0074-75, 0082).
Although, Giust-GE disclose allowing multiple tenants to shared MEC system in Edge application server with heterogenous application requirements but fail to expressly disclose an EASRequirements information object class (IOC), the EASRequirements IOC including deployment requirements associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gupta elaborately discloses the claimed limitations of an EASRequirements information object class (IOC), the EASRequirements IOC including deployment requirements associated with the instantiation of the EAS VNF (paragraphs 4, 23, 36-37, 47).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 24 applies equally as well to claim 39.
As per claim 40, Giust discloses the one or more transitory computer-readable media wherein deployment requirements further comprise software image information that includes: a minimum disk attribute, a minimum random access memory (RAM) attribute, a role attribute, and a software image reference attribute (paragraphs 39, 63).
As per claim 41, Giust discloses the one or more transitory computer-readable media wherein the minimum RAM attribute is an integer value to indicate a minimum number of megabytes required for EAS software (paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0047-49).
As per claim 42, Giust discloses the one or more transitory computer-readable media wherein the topological location attribute includes at least one of (claim 3, paragraphs 0055, 0061): a tracking area identifier list associated with one or more tracking area identifiers for the serving location (paragraphs 0036, 0047); and a serving public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier associated with the serving location (paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0047-49). Although, Giust discloses but fails to expressly disclose a next-generation NodeB (gNB) identifier list associated with one or more cell identifiers for the serving location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, GE discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the topological location attribute includes at least one of a next-generation NodeB (gNB) identifier list associated with one or more cell identifiers for the serving location (paragraphs 0113, 0124).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 24 applies equally as well to claim 42.
As per claim 43, Giust discloses the one or more transitory computer-readable media wherein d wherein the geographical location attribute includes at least one of: a latitude value and a longitude value; and a civic location attribute of the serving location (paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0047-49).
As per claim 44, Giust discloses the one or more transitory computer-readable media wherein the deployment requirements include the topological location attribute of the serving location (paragraphs 0027, 0043, 0047-49).
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
Prosecution Insights