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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4 8-10, 12-15, 16, 18 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, “the advertisement domain of computing information” has no clear antecedent basis.
Regarding “wherein adjacent domains are divided as the advertisement domain in accordance with a geographical location within the system”, claim 1, lines 8-9, is unclear. It is noted that the “central controller” determines the “advertisement domain within the system”. Therefore, it is not clear as to how “adjacent domains are divided as the advertisement domain”. It is a quest as to what are “the adjacent domains”.
Regarding the phrase “domains where a same service within the system is deployed are divided as the advertisement domain with the service as a dimension” is unclear. “a same service” is indefinite. What “service” is being considered ---a same service---?
In claim 1, lines 15-16, “the system of the service topology information” has no clear antecedent basis.
In order to clarify the claim language, “deployment, advertising” should have read ---deployment; advertising---, claim 1, line 15.
It is a question as to how “the central controller” determines ---a computing node which needs to obtain real-time service status---.
Is” one or more received service requests”, 2nd to last line, the same “one or more service requests”, claim 1, last paragraph, line 2?
Regarding “sending, by the central controller, a detection packet of service status information”, claim 1, last 2 lines, it is not clear as to where the packet is sent to. The limitation appears to be incomplete.
Claim 8 is confusing. Claim 1 defines that the “adjacent domains are divided as the advertisement domain in accordance with the geographical location”. It is not clear as to how the claim is further limiting the base claim.
In claim 8, “the dimension” has no clear antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “different domains” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 10 “the case of a good network status and reduced in the case of a bad status” is indefinite. How are “good network status” and “bad network”. It is also a question as to what is being “expanded” or “reduced”. Is it the size of the domains?
Claim 12 is confusing. What entity is issuing an advertisement domain division policy, and to where is the policy being issue? How Netconf and a Yang Management protocol relate to the “issuing an advertisement domain division policy”?
Claim 13, Is “an advertisement domain division policy” the same “an advertisement domain division policy” mentioned in claim 12?
Claim 13, “a node” is ambiguous.
Regarding claim 14, it is not clear as to how the claim is trying to further limit the base claim.
Regarding claim 15 “a same advertisement domain as a same community” is indefinite. What is “same advertisement domain” and “same community”?
What is the relationship of difference between “size” and “range”?
Regarding claim 16, “the advertisement domain of computing information” has no clear antecedent basis.
“Adjacent domain” is indefinite.
“a same service” is indefinite.
“the system of service topology information” has no clear antecedent basis.
Regarding “sending, by the central controller, a detection packet of service status information”, it is not clear as to where the packet is sent to. The limitation appears to be incomplete.
Regarding claim 21, “wherein the service topology information is advertised between nodes after computing service information is added in a node attribute field” appears to be incomplete. “is added in a node attribute field” is not defined. It is a question as to where “the node attribute field” located.
The applicant needs to carefully review the claim language and amend accordingly so as to properly capture (clear claim scope) what applicant intend to capture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12-16, 18 and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENTON B BURGESS whose telephone number is (571)272-3949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/GLENTON B BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights