DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/26/25.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are pending.
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
Argument – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claim 1, that Huang fails to disclose the limitation “adjust a length of time C/VNFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode based on a frequency at which requests handled by the C/VNFs of the first type are received in the apparatus”. In particular, the applicant states that Huang merely discloses a check as to whether the requested frequency of each VNF matches the distribution of the VNF in the system (see applicant’s remarks; pages 6-8).
Response to argument – The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Huang discloses setting, therefore adjusting, a time for an idle state for a VNF based on frequent requests.
In particular, Huang discloses after a VNF processes a service request, setting a maintenance time of an idle state for the VNF (emphasis added) (see Huang; paragraph 0061). The frequency of the service requests is determined (emphasis added) (see Huang; paragraphs 0204 and 0207). And the maintenance time of the idle state is set to a keep-alive time corresponding to the VNF instance (emphasis added) (see Huang; paragraphs 0215 and 0217). In other words, a maintenance time is adjusted by setting it to a keep-alive time corresponding to the VNF and the frequency of service requests for the VNF.
Therefore, Huang does in fact disclose the limitation “adjust a length of time C/VNFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode based on a frequency at which requests handled by the C/VNFs of the first type are received in the apparatus” by the service request being processed and then the VNF is set to an idle state, i.e. “retired idle mode”, in which a maintenance time for the idle state is set, i.e. “adjust”, to a keep-alive time based on the frequent transfers of the service request, i.e. “based on a frequency at which requests…are received”. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
The applicant states that claims 11 and 20 recite similar features to that of claim 1 (see applicant’s remarks; page 8), and therefore, the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 11 and 20.
Further, the applicant states that claims 6-8, 16 and 17 ultimately depend upon claims 1 and 11 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 8 and 9), and as such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 6-8, 16 and 17.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakarajan (U.S. 10,063,415 B1) (Applicant admitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/10/24) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. 2021/0029218 A1) (Applicant admitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/10/24).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Kanakarajan discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processing core and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing core (see Kanakarajan; column 24 lines 42-48; Kanakarajan discloses a storage medium may cause a processor to perform the method when instructions are executed), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive a request for an action handled by virtualized network functions or cloud- native network functions, C/VNFs, of a first type (see Kanakarajan; column 5 lines 61-63, column 6 lines 1-6; Kanakarajan discloses a plurality of pools of different, i.e. types of, VNFs and receiving a request to service network traffic and determining the necessary VNF from a pool of corresponding VNFs, i.e. “virtualized network functions of a first type”, to perform a composite network service, i.e. “action”, to satisfy the request. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, the acronym C/VNF is used to refer to either VNF or CNF; see specification as filed, paragraph 0015) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “virtualized network function” alternative);
select a C/VNF to serve the request from a set of C/VNFs (see Kanakarajan; column 6 lines 1-6 and column 20 lines 42-47; Kanakarajan discloses determining and selecting a necessary VNF, i.e. “select a C/VNF”, such as HTTP filtering, from pools of VNFs, i.e. “a set of C/VNFs” to satisfy the request, i.e. “to serve the request”), wherein individual C/VNFs of the set are in one of three modes: active mode, retired idle mode or initialized idle mode (see Kanakarajan; column 5 lines 64 - column 6 line 1 and column 20 lines 57-58; Kanakarajan discloses an orchestration engine initializes different VNFs and assigns the VNFs to a pool, wherein each pool contains idle, i.e. “initialized idle mode”, VNFs currently unassigned that perform a particular function), or instantiate and select a new C/VNF to serve the request (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “initialized idle mode” alternative), and
assign the request to the selected C/VNF (see Kanakarajan; column 6 lines 1-6, column 5 lines 59-65 and column 10 lines 27-30; Kanakarajan discloses selecting the corresponding VNF and dynamically creates, i.e. “assign…”, a service chain including the VNF, i.e. “to the selected C/VNF”, to satisfy the request. The service chain defines one or more virtualized network functions).
While Kanakarajan discloses “C/VNFs of the first type” and an idle mode, as discussed above, Kanakarajan does not explicitly disclose adjust a length of time C/VNFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode based on a frequency at which requests handled by the C/VNFs of the first type are received in the apparatus.
In analogous art, Huang discloses adjust a length of time C/VNFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode based on a frequency at which requests handled by the C/VNFs of the first type are received in the apparatus (see Huang; paragraphs 0061, 0144, 0207, 0215 and 0217; Huang discloses after a VNF, i.e. “C/VNF of the first type”, processes a service chain request, setting the VNF to an idle state, i.e. a “retired idle mode” by the service chain request being processed and then the VNF is set to an idle state, wherein the maintenance time, i.e. “adjust a length of time”, of the idle state is set as a keep-alive time based on the frequent transfers of the service chain requests, i.e. “based on a frequency at which requests…are received”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kanakarajan and Huang because they both disclose features of a service chain, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of setting an idle state as taught by Huang into the system of Kanakarajan in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the idle VNFs of the pool (see Kanakarajan; column 5 line 66 – column 6 line 1) to be set for a specific idle time (see Huang; paragraphs 0061 and 0215) before the message is sent to have the VNFs to enter into an operational mode (see Kanakarajan; column 15 lines 64-67).
Further, Kanakarajan discloses the additional limitations of claim 20, a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a set of computer readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (see Kanakarajan; column 24 lines 42-55; Kanakarajan discloses a computer-readable storage medium may cause a processor to perform the method when instructions are executed).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kanakarajan and Huang disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan and Huang clearly discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to reduce the length of time C/VNEFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode when the frequency of requests declines (see Huang; paragraphs 0205, 0207, 0210 and 0215; Huang discloses setting the VNF to an idle state, i.e. “retired idle mode”, and a time that is set may be minimized when frequency of requests is insufficient, i.e. “requests declines”), to increase the length of time C/VNFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode when the frequency of requests increases (see Huang; paragraphs 0205, 0207, 0210 and 0215; Huang discloses setting the VNF to an idle state, i.e. “retired idle mode”, and a time that is set may be minimized when frequency of requests is sufficient, i.e. “requests increases”), and to assign the reduced or increased length of time C/VNFs of the first type remain in the retired idle mode to the selected C/VNF in connection with the assigning of the request to the selected C/VNF (see Huang; paragraphs 0061, 0144, 0207, 0215 and 0217; Huang discloses after a VNF, i.e. “C/VNF of the first type”, processes the request, setting the VNF to an idle state, i.e. a “retired idle mode” by the request being processed and then the VNF is set to an idle state, wherein the maintenance time of the idle state is set, i.e. “assign the reduced or increased length of time”, as a keep-alive time so the VNF may process the service chain requests, i.e. “assigning of the request to the selected C/VNF”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kanakarajan and Huang disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan and Huang clearly discloses wherein C/VNFs in the initialized idle mode are C/VNFs to which the apparatus has not assigned a request to handle (see Kanakarajan; column 5 lines 64 - column 6 line 1 and column 20 lines 57-58; Kanakarajan discloses an orchestration engine initializes different VNFs and assigns the VNFs to a pool, wherein each pool contains idle, i.e. “initialized idle mode”, VNFs currently unassigned that perform a particular function).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kanakarajan and Huang disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan and Huang clearly discloses wherein C/VNFs in the retired idle mode are C/VNFs from which the apparatus has received a notification, that the C/VNFs have finished processing a request (see Huang; paragraphs 0071, 0108, 0215 and 0218; Huang discloses a network function virtualization controller to monitor and maintain the operation state of the VNF, i.e. “C/VNF”, and communicates with a coordination controller. After the VNF processes the service function chain request it is set to the idle time, i.e. “retired idle mode”. In other words, once the VNF processes the service function chain request, i.e. “finished processing a request”, the network function virtualization controller communicates with a coordination controller, i.e. “received a notification”, in order to set the idle time, i.e. “retired idle mode”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Kanakarajan and Huang disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan and Huang clearly discloses further configured to receive finish notifications from C/VNFs, individual finish notifications indicating that a C/VNF having sent the respective finish notification has completed processing a request and that the C/VNF has entered retired idle mode (see Huang; paragraphs 0071, 0108, 0215, 0217 and 0218; Huang discloses a network function virtualization controller to monitor and maintain the operation state of the VNF and communicates with a coordination controller. After each VNF instance, i.e. “C/VNFs”, processes the service function chain request it is set to the idle time, i.e. “retired idle mode”. In other words, once each VNF instance has processed the service function chain request, i.e. “finished processing a request”, the network function virtualization controller communicates with a coordination controller, i.e. “receive finish notifications…individual finish notifications”, in order to set the idle time, i.e. “retired idle mode”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Kanakarajan and Huang discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan and Huang clearly discloses receive a request for an action handled by C/VNFs of a second type, to select a C/VNF of the second type to serve the request from a second set of C/VNFs (see Kanakarajan; column 5 lines 61-63, column 6 lines 1-6 and column 20 lines 42-47; Kanakarajan discloses a plurality of pools of different, i.e. types of, VNFs and receiving a request to service network traffic and determining and selecting a necessary VNF, i.e. “select a C/VNF…”, such as IDP, i.e. “…the second type”, from a second pool of different VNFs to perform a composite network service, i.e. “action”, to satisfy the request, i.e. “…to serve the request from a second set of C/VNFs”), wherein individual C/VNFs of the second type in the second set are in one of three modes: the active mode, the retired idle mode or the initialized idle mode (see Kanakarajan; column 5 lines 64 - column 6 line 1 and column 20 lines 57-58; Kanakarajan discloses an orchestration engine initializes different VNFs and assigns the VNFs to a pool, wherein each pool contains idle, i.e. “initialized idle mode”, VNFs currently unassigned that perform a particular function), and to assign the request to the selected C/VNEF of the second type (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “initialized idle mode” alternative).
Claims 6-8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakarajan (U.S. 10,063,415 B1) (Applicant admitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/10/24) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. 2021/0029218 A1) (Applicant admitted prior art; see IDS filed 05/10/24), and further in view of Wagner et al. (U.S. 2017/0090961 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kanakarajan and Huang disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above. While Kanakarajan discloses “C/VNFs of the first type” and an idle mode, as discussed above, the combination of Kanakarajan and Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to select a number of initialized idle mode C/VNFs of the first type based on a variance of a number of incoming requests per time unit, the requests handled by the C/VNEFs of the first type.
In analogous art, Wagner discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to select a number of initialized idle mode C/VNFs of the first type based on a variance of a number of incoming requests per time unit, the requests handled by the C/VNEFs of the first type (see Wagner; paragraphs 0017-0019 and 0034; Wagner discloses a virtual compute system, i.e. “apparatus”, maintains a warming pool of virtual machine, i.e. “C/VNFs of the first type”, instances designated to service requests. The warming pool includes virtual machine instances waiting to be used, i.e. “initialized idle mode”, and a number of virtual machine instances are configured and executed, i.e. “select a number…”, based on identifying a trend in the requests, such as, the volume of the requests and periodicity of the requests, i.e. “based on a variance of a number of incoming requests…”. The examiner notes that as known virtual network functions are deployed as virtual machines, and as such, the virtual network functions are interpreted as virtual machines).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kanakarajan, Huang and Wagner because they all disclose features of a request handling in a virtualized network, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of a virtual compute system as taught by Wagner into the combined system of Kanakarajan and Huang in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the idle VNFs of the pool (see Kanakarajan; column 5 line 66 – column 6 line 1) to be load balanced based on a trend of the volume and periodicity of receiving requests to be serviced (see Wagner; paragraphs 0018 and 0034).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kanakarajan, Huang and Wagner disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan, Huang and Wagner clearly discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to select a larger number of initialized idle mode C/VNFs of the first type when the variance is higher, and a smaller number of initialized idle mode C/VNFs of the first type when the variance is lower (see Wagner; paragraphs 0018, 0028, 0034, 0035, 0066 and 0070; Wagner discloses virtual compute system may scale up or scale down the number of virtual machine, i.e. “C/VNFs of the first type”, instances that are configured and executed based on an identified trend of the requests, such as, the volume of the requests and periodicity of the requests, i.e. “variance”, in which the number of virtual machine instances is increased when the volume of requests is at a peak or decreased when the periodicity of the requests is minimized, i.e. “select a larger number…when variance is higher and a smaller number…when variance is lower”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Kanakarajan, Huang and Wagner disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kanakarajan, Huang and Wagner clearly discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to initialize C/VNFs into the initialized idle mode (see Kanakarajan; column 5 lines 64 - column 6 line 1 and column 20 lines 57-58; Kanakarajan discloses an orchestration engine initializes different VNFs and assigns the VNFs to a pool, wherein each pool contains idle, i.e. “initialized idle mode”, VNFs currently unassigned that perform a particular function).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xia (U.S. 2022/0075666 A1) discloses in response to a management request creating a virtualized network function (VNF) instance.
Segura Cava et al. (U.S. 2021/0200599 A1) discloses managing a virtual network function.
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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2458
12/31/25
/ALINA A BOUTAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights