Detail Action
This office action is a response to an application filed on 08/25/2024.
Claims 1- 20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/25/2024. These drawings are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12082047 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the application are an obvious variant of the claims of the Patent. It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1- 20 are to be found in patent claims and recite language that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as substantially identical subject matter. The reasons for concluding that the invention defined in the independent claim 1 of application would have been an obvious variation to have modified by claim 1 of conflicting patent, and thus, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the patent.
Instant Claim 1 of 18/794168
Conflicting Claim 1 of US 12,082047 B2
1. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining data pertaining to traffic conveyed in a home network via a first gateway;
obtaining data pertaining to traffic conveyed in a home network via a first gateway;
analyzing the data to generate information, the information identifying characteristics of the traffic, the home network, or a combination thereof;
analyzing the data to generate information, the information identifying characteristics of the traffic, the home network, or a combination thereof, and the characteristics involving performance, quality, load, sensitivities, or any combination thereof;
identifying, based on the information, at least one action to be performed, the at least one action including reallocating a portion of a processing load from the first gateway to a second gateway that is remote from the home network; and
causing the at least one action to be performed.
identifying, based on the information, one or more actions to be performed in respect of: at least one communication device included in the home network, a second gateway included in a cloud network that is remote from the home network, or a combination thereof, resulting in at least one identified action; and
causing the at least one identified action to be performed.
.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 10- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski et al. (US 20220264685 A1), hereinafter “Paczkowski”; and in further view of Ijntema et al. (US 20210345357 A1), hereinafter “Ijntema”.
Regarding claim 1, Paczkowski teaches A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising [Fig. 7; device 380 Par. 65]: analyzing the data to generate information, the information identifying characteristics of the traffic, the home network, or a combination thereof; identifying, based on the information, at least one action to be performed [Par. 23- 24 teaches determining that the data channel , the at least one action including reallocating a portion of a processing load from the first gateway to a second gateway [Par. 23- 24 teaches move the data channel (first portion) to the second network slice] that is remote from the home network [Par. 6 remote device manager and method can be received by remote device manager establish connection using 5G]; and causing the at least one action to be performed [Fig. 2; step 208 in response to the command, the remote device manger initiates establishment of connection].
PNG
media_image1.png
594
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Paczkowski does not teach obtaining data pertaining to traffic conveyed in a home network via a first gateway.
Nevertheless, Ijntema, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches obtaining data pertaining to traffic conveyed in a home network via a first gateway;
[[0062-65, 89]: receiving, from a network services node, the data indicating changes in network resources available for maintaining instantiated network slices in a communication network].
PNG
media_image2.png
650
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Ijntema to obtaining network resources/ data. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Ijntema in the Paczkowski system with a motivation to make this modification in order to indicate receiving data available for network (Ijntema, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the causing of the at least one action to be performed comprises causing the second gateway to be instantiated in a cloud network for communicating with the first gateway [Paczkowski: Par. 56 teaches hosted in cloud data center].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 2. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the second gateway is instantiated as a virtual function in the cloud network [Paczkowski: Par. 5A].
Regarding claim 10, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of a modulation scheme that is utilized by the first gateway to change from a first modulation scheme to a second modulation scheme that is different from the first modulation scheme [Paczkowski: Par. 54]
Regarding claim 11, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of an encryption scheme that is utilized by the first gateway to change from a first encryption scheme to a second encryption scheme that is different from the first encryption scheme [Paczkowski: Par. 60].
Regarding claim 12, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the at least one action comprises enabling an application on a first user equipment communicatively coupled to the first gateway as part of the home network [Paczkowski: Par. 60 application function 592, which may be located outside of the core network 558, exposes the application layer for interacting with the core network 558. In an embodiment, the application function 592 may be execute on an application server 559 located geographically proximate to the UE 552 in an “edge computing” deployment mode].
Regarding claim 13, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the at least one action comprises modifying an application that is executed by a first user equipment communicatively coupled to the first gateway as part of the home network from a first version to a second version that is different from the first version [Paczkowski: Par. 60 application function 592, which may be located outside of the core network 558, exposes the application layer for interacting with the core network 558. In an embodiment, the application function 592 may be execute on an application server 559 located geographically proximate to the UE 552 in an “edge computing” deployment mode].
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 14. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the communication service involves a second user equipment [Paczkowski: Fig. 5A].
Regarding claim 16, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 14. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the performing of the action comprises reducing an amount of data associated with the second user equipment as part of the communication service from a first level to a second level that is less than the first level [Paczkowski: Par. 21- 22 determine status of data and reduce the total load].
Regarding claim 17, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 14. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the action comprises distributing at least a portion of the processing load to a second gateway that is instantiated at a location that is remote from the first gateway [Paczkowski: Par. 68].
Regarding claim 18, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Paczkowski in view of Ijntema further teaches wherein the second gateway and the first gateway are communicatively coupled via a fiber link [Paczkowski: Par. 68].
Regarding claim 19, Paczkowski teaches A method, comprising:
facilitating, by a processing system including a processor, a first data session involving a first user equipment[Fig. 7; device 380 Par. 65]:
analyzing, by the processing system, first data associated with the first data session and second data associated with the second data session relative to a computational capacity of the processing system [Par. 59 teaches SMF handle session management]; and [Par. 23- 24 teaches determining that the data channel , [Par. 23- 24 teaches move the data channel (first portion) to the second network slice] [Par. 6 remote device manager and method can be received by remote device manager establish connection using 5G]; and modifying, by the processing system, or a combination thereof [Fig. 2; step 208 in response to the command, the remote device manger initiates establishment of connection].
PNG
media_image1.png
594
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Paczkowski does not teaches modifying, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, the first data session, the second data session.
Nevertheless, Ijntema, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches modifying, by the processing system and based on the analyzing, the first data session, the second data session [[0062-66, 89]: modify allocation of network resources, and receiving, from a network services node, the data indicating changes in network resources available for maintaining instantiated network slices in a communication network].
PNG
media_image2.png
650
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Ijntema to obtaining network resources/ data. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Ijntema in the Paczkowski system with a motivation to make this modification in order to indicate receiving data available for network (Ijntema, Fig. 7).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski et al. (US 20220264685 A1), hereinafter “Paczkowski”; and in further view of Ijntema et al. (US 20210345357 A1), hereinafter “Ijntema”; and in further view of Chen et al. (US 20120020231 A1), herein after "Chen”.
Regarding claim 8, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. However, Paczkowski in view of Ijntema
does not teach wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of a frequency band that is utilized by the first gateway to change from a first frequency band to a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band.
Nevertheless, Chen, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of a frequency band that is utilized by the first gateway to change from a first frequency band to a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band[Chen: Figs. 1, 5; Par. 36 teaches change of supported frequency bands to mitigate interference].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Chen to change frequency bands. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Chen in the Paczkowski/ Ijntema system with a motivation to make this modification in order to avoid interference (Chen: Par. 12).
Regarding claim 9, the combined Paczkowski in view of Ijntema teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. However, Paczkowski in view of Ijntema
does not teach wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of a frequency band that is utilized by a first user equipment communicatively coupled to the first gateway as part of the home network to change from a first frequency band to a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band.
Nevertheless, Chen, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of a frequency band that is utilized by a first user equipment communicatively coupled to the first gateway as part of the home network to change from a first frequency band to a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band [Chen: Figs. 1, 5; Par. 36 teaches change of supported frequency bands to mitigate interference].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Chen to change frequency bands. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Chen in the Paczkowski/ Ijntema system with a motivation to make this modification in order to avoid interference (Chen: Par. 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4- 7, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
A full search was conducted and the features of the instant Claims 4- 7, and 20 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Paczkowski/ Ijntema and Chen.
With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of method and devices for data connection recovery in cloud network [Paczkowski: Figs. 1, 5; Par. 22- 24) and modifying and allocating resources [Ijntema: Par. 62- 68] and changing frequency bands based on the information [Chen: Figs. 1- 5].
However, the combined Paczkowski/ Ijntema/ in view of Chen does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim 20 reciting;
“modifying, by the processing system, a first communication parameter associated with the processing system;
modifying, by the processing system, a second communication parameter associated with the second user equipment;
transferring, by the processing system, a portion of a processing load accommodated by the processing system to a second processing system for processing by the second processing system; and
obtaining, by the processing system and from the second processing system, a result of the processing of the portion of the processing load by the second processing system; and
modifying, by the processing system and based on the obtaining of the result, a third communication parameter associated with the first user equipment”
In addition, the combined Paczkowski/ Ijntema/ in view of Chen does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 4-7 reciting;
“wherein the at least one action comprises a modification of a transmission power level of the first gateway to change from a first power level to a second power level that is different from the first power level.”
Therefore, Claims 4- 7, and 20 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights