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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“receiving, by a first network device” in claim 10, line 2.
“generating, by the first network device” in claim 10, line 3.
“sending, by the first network device” in claim 10, line 6.
“receiving, by a second network device” in claim 11, line 2.
“enforcing, by the second network device” in claim 11, line 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a device configured to receive an enterprise subscription order, generate a slicing policy configuration file, and send the file to an enterprise, which is certain methods of organizing human activity, such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a device/processor performing the steps, the additional elements do not impose meaningful limit on the judicial exception of merely generating a file in response to an order. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the device/processor are recited in a generic manner and are merely extra-solution activity and conventional. Claims 10 and 17 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and are similarly rejected under the same rationale. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 merely recite further what particular data the file or inputs should contain, or general details on data transfer, and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and are similarly rejected.
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 10-16 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second network device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite “a second network device”.
The claim limitations noted in the Claim Interpretation above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. “Device” is a non-structural term, and while the Specification discloses that “For example, network device 120 may include a switch, a router a firewall, a gateway, a Network Address Translation (NAT) device, a Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop Multiplexer (ROADM), and/or another type of network device” (Specification, ¶[0018], emphasis added) and “Device 600 may correspond to or include, for example, network devices 110…Device 600 may include a bus 610, a processor 620, a memory 630 with software 635” (Specification, ¶[0059], emphasis added), the disclosure is merely exemplary and open-ended. Therefore, the claimed first and second network device of claims 10 and 11 are not clearly linked to a particular structure for performing the claimed functions. Accordingly, claims 10 and 11 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 11-16 are rejected as depending from claim 10 and under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guday et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0048713), hereinafter Guday, and further in view of Stammers et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0024258), hereinafter Stammers.
Regarding claim 1, Guday disclosed a system comprising: a first network device (MNO/MNO server, ¶[0078]) including a first processor (processor, ¶[0113]) configured to: receive an order for an enterprise subscription (enterprise selecting/purchasing, i.e., ordering, subscriptions from MNO, ¶[0078]); generate, based on the order, a policy configuration file for user equipment (UE) devices associated with the enterprise subscription (MNO implementing subscription generator function to create, i.e., generate, profiles, i.e., policy configuration file, ¶[0050]; profiles for user equipment UE, ¶[0034]-[0036]); and send the policy configuration file to an enterprise (MNO providing/provisioning, i.e., sending, subscriptions/profiles, i.e., policy configuration file, to enterprise server, i.e., enterprise, ¶[0095], [0036]).
While Guday disclosed generating and sending policy configuration files to an enterprise, Guday did not specifically disclose generating and sending a slicing policy configuration file as claimed. That is, Guday did not disclose:
generate, based on the order, a slicing policy configuration file for user equipment (UE) devices associated with the enterprise subscription; and send the slicing policy configuration file to an enterprise (emphasis added).
Stammers disclosed enforcing a policy for a device using an enterprise network, the policy including slicing procedures/permissions/limitations, i.e., a slicing policy configuration file (¶[0033], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Guday to include a slicing policy configuration file as claimed, because doing so would have increased network security and preserved bandwidth and/or connectivity (¶[0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Guday and Stammers disclosed the system further comprising: a second network device (enterprise policy manager EPM, Guday, ¶[0073]) including a second processor (processor, Guday, ¶[0113]) configured to: receive, from the enterprise, the slicing policy configuration file (managing enterprise policies in conjunction with provisioned, i.e., received, profiles, Guday, ¶[0073]); and enforce network slice assignments for the UE devices associated with the enterprise subscription, based on the slicing policy configuration file (EPM managing target UE, i.e., UE devices based on profile/policy, Guday, ¶[0073]; policy including slicing procedures/permissions/limitations, i.e., a slicing policy configuration file, Stammers, ¶[0033], [0039]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Guday and Stammers disclosed the system wherein the second network device includes a Mobile Device Management (MDM) server (EPM/mobile device manager MDM, Guday, ¶[0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Guday and Stammers disclosed the system wherein, when receiving the slicing policy configuration file, the second processor is further configured to: receive the slicing policy configuration file via a dedicated interface (retrieving profiles over ESe3 interface, Guday, ¶[0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Guday disclosed a method comprising: receiving, by a first network device (MNO/MNO server, ¶[0078]), an order for an enterprise subscription (enterprise selecting/purchasing, i.e., ordering, subscriptions from MNO, ¶[0078]); generating, by the first network device and based on the order, a policy configuration file for user equipment (UE) devices associated with the enterprise subscription (MNO implementing subscription generator function to create, i.e., generate, profiles, i.e., policy configuration file, ¶[0050]; profiles for user equipment UE, ¶[0034]-[0036]); and sending, by the first network device, the policy configuration file to an enterprise (MNO providing/provisioning, i.e., sending, subscriptions/profiles, i.e., policy configuration file, to enterprise server, i.e., enterprise, ¶[0095], [0036]).
While Guday disclosed generating and sending policy configuration files to an enterprise, Guday did not specifically disclose generating and sending a slicing policy configuration file as claimed. That is, Guday did not disclose:
generating, by the first network device and based on the order, a slicing policy configuration file for user equipment (UE) devices associated with the enterprise subscription; and sending, by the first network device, the slicing policy configuration file to an enterprise (emphasis added).
Stammers disclosed enforcing a policy for a device using an enterprise network, the policy including slicing procedures/permissions/limitations, i.e., a slicing policy configuration file (¶[0033], [0039]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Guday and Stammers disclosed the method further comprising: receiving, by a second network device and from the enterprise (enterprise policy manager EPM, Guday, ¶[0073]), the slicing policy configuration file (managing enterprise policies in conjunction with provisioned, i.e., received, profiles, Guday, ¶[0073]); and enforcing, by the second network device, network slice assignments for the UE devices associated with the enterprise subscription, based on the slicing policy configuration file (EPM managing target UE, i.e., UE devices based on profile/policy, Guday, ¶[0073]; policy including slicing procedures/permissions/limitations, i.e., a slicing policy configuration file, Stammers, ¶[0033], [0039]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Guday and Stammers disclosed the method wherein the second network device is part of a Mobile Device Management (MDM) system (EPM/mobile device manager MDM, Guday, ¶[0073]).
Regarding claim 17, Guday disclosed a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor of a network device, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions (non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code, ¶[0113]; processor, ¶[0113]; MNO/MNO server, i.e., network device, ¶[0078]) for: receiving, by the network device, an order for an enterprise subscription (enterprise selecting/purchasing, i.e., ordering, subscriptions from MNO, ¶[0078]); generating, by the network device and based on the order, a policy configuration file for user equipment (UE) devices associated with the enterprise subscription (MNO implementing subscription generator function to create, i.e., generate, profiles, i.e., policy configuration file, ¶[0050]; profiles for user equipment UE, ¶[0034]-[0036]); and sending, by the network device, the policy configuration file to an enterprise customer (MNO providing/provisioning, i.e., sending, subscriptions/profiles, i.e., policy configuration file, to enterprise server, i.e., enterprise, ¶[0095], [0036]).
While Guday disclosed generating and sending policy configuration files to an enterprise, Guday did not specifically disclose generating and sending a slicing policy configuration file as claimed. That is, Guday did not disclose:
generating, by the network device and based on the order, a slicing policy configuration file for user equipment (UE) devices associated with the enterprise subscription; and sending, by the network device, the slicing policy configuration file to an enterprise customer (emphasis added).
Stammers disclosed enforcing a policy for a device using an enterprise network, the policy including slicing procedures/permissions/limitations, i.e., a slicing policy configuration file (¶[0033], [0039]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Figueiredo Junior et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,440,558) disclosed a system linking MDM and MNO servers for enterprise applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441