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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they do no show the claimed invention. Both figures 1 and 2 do not include any details and are simply boxes. The figures should show the invention as described in the specification. The examiner suggests amending figure 1 to include steps in the flowchart box, as well as labeling the components in figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Claim 12 is written as a dependent claim (or shorthand independent), dependent on claim 1, but should be written in independent form. Currently the claim includes issues with antecedent basis as devices are recited that were previously recited in claim 1 as well (i.e. “a software defined networking controller”, “edge devices”, “mobile computational devices” etc.), were recited in claim 1 and 12, and it is unclear if they are intended to refer back to the previously recited. The claim also recites the same description of the ad-hoc network reiterated again which adds confusion to the claim. The examiner suggests rewriting claim 12 as a standalone independent claim to avoid any such issues. Claims 13 and 14 are dependent on claim 12 and thus inherent the deficiencies of claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts, mental process, and high-level data evaluation without significantly more. The claims do not integrate them into a practical application or include significantly more than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Please see the explanation below for a detailed reasoning. Claims 2-14 do not appear to correct these issues and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
Claim 1 is drawn to a “method”, which is a process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s).
The claim recites an abstract idea of mathematical concepts per the 2019 PEG (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), and also recites mental-process style evaluation steps (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)):
Mathematical concepts:
“validating, via the SDN controller, a deployment … based on a genetic operation, via an evolutionary algorithm” (recites an optimization algorithm).
“the service is represented by a multitude of chromosomes, each chromosome comprising a multitude of genes, wherein in each chromosome, each gene represents one corresponding microservice allocation vector” (recites abstract data structures).
“the quality of each chromosome is estimated based on a corresponding fitness value … wherein the fitness value corresponds to the total cost of allocation” (recites a mathematical objective/fitness function).
“arranging … the multitude of chromosomes in descending order according to a corresponding fitness value …” (sorting by a computed metric).
“selecting … a chromosome with the highest fitness value … such that a resource consumption … is minimized” (optimization/selection by extremum).
Mental processes/data manipulation:
“gathering … network information of a current status” (generic data collection).
“verifying … that a remaining energy … is sufficient … and/or that a bandwidth … is sufficient …” (high-level evaluation and decision making).
“creating … a multitude of microservice allocation vectors” (organizing information into vectors).
The claim describes collecting and evaluating data and performing mathematical optimization (genetic/evolutionary algorithm, fitness evaluation, sorting, selecting), which are judicial exceptions when recited at a high level without specific technological implementation details.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present.
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
No specific improvement to computer/network functioning is recited. The claim uses generic SDN controller and network context but does not claim concrete control-plane or data-plane changes (e.g., installing flow rules, reserving bandwidth, instantiating microservices, adjusting device power states) that improve the operation of the network or computers. The stated outcome—“such that a resource consumption … is minimized”—is results-oriented.
Particular machine: The SDN controller and ad-hoc-edge network are invoked as an environment; absent particularized architecture or operations, this is a field-of-use limitation (MPEP 2106.05(b), (h), (f)).
Transformation: The claim transforms information (vectors, chromosomes, fitness values) rather than a physical article or device state (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Extra-solution activity: “gathering” and “verifying” are data acquisition/analysis steps; “arranging” and “selecting” are the abstract optimization itself; there is no claimed post-solution actuation that changes network/device behavior beyond the intended result (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more.
Additional elements beyond the abstract idea: “SDN controller,” “edge devices,” “mobile computational devices,” “microservices,” “ad-hoc network”.
These elements, individually and in combination, appear well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field:
SDN controllers routinely gather network state and orchestrate placement using standard protocols; the specification expressly notes “uses standard protocols to install microservices” ([0087]).
Evolutionary/genetic algorithms with chromosomes/genes, fitness-based selection, crossover/mutation, and threshold termination are conventional optimization techniques (spec. [0041]–[0043] describes them generically).
Checking resource sufficiency (energy, bandwidth) for task placement is routine in edge computing.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, well-understood, routine, or conventional is a factual inquiry. Here, the specification itself characterizes the algorithmic mechanisms as generic classes and the controller as using standard protocols, supporting a well-understood, routine, or conventional finding. Absent claim-level specifics demonstrating non-conventional controller architecture or protocol behaviors, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception.
Examiners suggestions to overcome this:
Integrate the optimization into a practical application:
Add deployment/actuation steps by the SDN controller.
Claim post-solution device/network changes.
Tie the abstract steps to a specific, non-generic technological implementation that improves computer functionality or another technology.
Add claim elements showing a particular machine or a transformation of an article/device state, beyond mere data manipulation or selection.
Replace results-oriented language with concrete steps and parameters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250373888 Wang et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL THIER whose telephone number is (571)272-2832. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM, Fri 7:00 AM-10:00 AM.
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.
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.
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Michael Thier
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2474