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 .
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 timewise 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,388,579 (hereinafter '579), in view of Wang et al. US 2021/0076250 (hereinafter Wang) and RAO et al. US 2018/0109590 (hereinafter RAO).
Regarding System claim 1 of the instant application (hereinafter IA), Claim 9 of Patent '579 recites system having claimed features comprising one or more processors; and memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to effectuate operations comprising:
instantiating, based on the UE profile for the UE for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; (The instant claim 1 of the IA having omitted some features claimed in Claim 9 of Patent '579. Additionally, the IA claim limitation requiring that the UE is seeking to associate with a network is substantially the same as the claimed limitation in Patent ‘579 recited as “… detecting a user equipment (UE) entering a network…”)
instantiating a broker associated with the container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the container for the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 1 and Patent '579 claim 9.)
But, while IA claim 1 recites causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE, which is similar to Claim 9 of Patent '579 which features steering subsequent traffic through the per-UE container the difference is that Claim 1 of the IA requires policy enforcement in general which is not solely limited to the policy enforcement feature of steering traffic as claimed in Claim 9 of Patent '579.
(The differences between the IA's claim 1 and Claim 9 of Patent '579 is the substitution of similar claim language "detecting a UE entering a network" and the claimed fetch step in response to a determined "UE seeking to associated with a network.")
But Patent ‘579 is silent on the claim limitation reciting “causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE” as required by claim 1 of the IA.
However, Wang teaches wherein the MEC platform comprising a virtualized architecture which uses quality policy for a connected UE to perform policy enforcement of user plane traffic associated with the UE [Wang, ¶57]. This disclosure of Wang teaches the causing a container (virtualized architecture) to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE (perform policy enforcement of the user plane traffic associated with the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 9 of Patent '579 directed to steering subsequent traffic through the instantiated per-UE container of a radio network edge, with the teachings of Wang which teaches utilizing MEC mechanisms for controlling quality enforcement for services provided to mobile devices serviced by a RAN. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services instead of relying on a core network to provide the services.
But even though the Patent ‘579 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, the combination fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
However, RAO teaches wherein as the UE moves along path 912, virtual network function (VNF) 914 can also be moved to different locations within the mobile edge computing (MEC) resource 902. If the MEC 902 is a distributed computing resource, it may be composed of resources at different data centers. Moving of VNF 914 to 914’ and 914” may be done to reduce the inter-MEC network traffic or to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. This disclosure teaches the IA claim limitation of “the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value”, wherein the container is comprised of at least one VNF as supported by ¶30-¶31 of the Specification of the IA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 9 of Patent '579 directed to “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, with the teachings of RAO which that as the UE moves along a path through the network to different locations within the MEC (or in the distributed MEC), that the VNF may be moved inter-MEC to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services by ensuring that the instantiation of containers are maintained/moved/relocated within proximity to the location of the UE as the UE moves throughout the network according to a measurable metric of latency.
Regarding claim 2 of the IA, Claim 10 of Patent '579 claims the same features of steering the traffic through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises signaling traffic.
Regarding claim 3 of the IA, Claim 11 of Patent '579 claims the same features of steering the traffic through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises data traffic.
Regarding claim 4 of the IA, Claim 12 of Patent '579 claims the same features of destroying the UE container based on removal of the UE from the network.
Regarding claim 5 of the IA, Claim 13 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the UE container is instantiated in a first mobile datacenter of a plurality of mobile datacenters, wherein the broker is further associated with at least one other UE container instantiated in at least one other mobile datacenter of the plurality of mobile datacenters, and wherein the broker is further used to identify other QoE events from the at least one other per-UE container for at least one other UE.
Regarding claim 6 of the IA, Claim 14 of Patent '579 claims the same features of identifying the QoE events from the container is based on a first subscription message facilitated by the broker between the system and the container, wherein identifying the other QoE events from the at least one other container is based on a second subscription message facilitated by the broker between the system and the at least one other container, wherein the first subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the QoE events published by the container, and wherein the second subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the other QoE events published by the at least one other container.
Regarding claim 7 of the IA, Claim 9 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the core network functions comprise a function of a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) based core.
Regarding claim 8 of the IA, Claims 15 and 16 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the 3GPP based core comprises a 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) core or a 5G core.
Regarding claim 9 of the IA, Claim 17 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein traffic for the UE is tunneled through a plurality of virtual switches.
Regarding Method claim 10 of the IA, Claim 1 of Patent '579 recites method comprising:
instantiating, by a network controller, and based on the user equipment (UE) profile for the UE for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; (The instant claim 1 of the IA having omitted some features claimed in Claim 9 of Patent '579. Additionally, the IA claim limitation requiring that the UE is seeking to associate with a network is substantially the same as the claimed limitation in Patent ‘579 recited as “… detecting a user equipment (UE) entering a network…”)
instantiating, by the network controller, a broker associated with the per-UE container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the per-UE container for the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 10 and Patent '579 claim 1.)
But, while IA claim 10 recites causing, by the network controller, the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE, which is similar to Claim 9 of Patent '579 which features steering subsequent traffic through the per-UE container the difference is that Claim 1 of the IA requires policy enforcement in general which is not solely limited to the policy enforcement feature of steering traffic as claimed in Claim 1 of Patent '579.
(The differences between the IA's claim 10 and Claim 1 of Patent '579 is the substitution of similar claim language "detecting a UE entering a network" and the claimed fetch step in response to a determined "UE seeking to associated with a network.")
But Patent ‘579 is silent on the claim limitation reciting “causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE” as required by claim 10 of the IA.
However, Wang teaches wherein the MEC platform comprising a virtualized architecture which uses quality policy for a connected UE to perform policy enforcement of user plane traffic associated with the UE [Wang, ¶57]. This disclosure of Wang teaches the claimed causing, by the network controller, a container (virtualized architecture) to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE (perform policy enforcement of the user plane traffic associated with the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 1 of Patent '579 directed to steering subsequent traffic through the instantiated per-UE container of a radio network edge, with the teachings of Wang which teaches utilizing MEC mechanisms for controlling quality enforcement for services provided to mobile devices serviced by a RAN. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services instead of relying on a core network to provide the services.
But even though the Patent ‘579 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, the combination fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
However, RAO teaches wherein as the UE moves along path 912, virtual network function (VNF) 914 can also be moved to different locations within the mobile edge computing (MEC) resource 902. If the MEC 902 is a distributed computing resource, it may be composed of resources at different data centers. Moving of VNF 914 to 914’ and 914” may be done to reduce the inter-MEC network traffic or to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. This disclosure teaches the IA claim limitation of “the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value”, wherein the container is comprised of at least one VNF as supported by ¶30-¶31 of the Specification of the IA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 1 of Patent '579 directed to “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, with the teachings of RAO which that as the UE moves along a path through the network to different locations within the MEC (or in the distributed MEC), that the VNF may be moved inter-MEC to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services by ensuring that the instantiation of containers are maintained/moved/relocated within proximity to the location of the UE as the UE moves throughout the network according to a measurable metric of latency.
Regarding claim 11 of the IA, Claim 2 of Patent '579 claims the same features of steering the traffic associated with the UE through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises signaling traffic.
Regarding claim 12 of the IA, Claim 3 of Patent '579 claims the same features of steering the traffic associated with the UE through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises data traffic.
Regarding claim 13 of the IA, Claim 1 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the core network functions comprise a function of a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) based core.
Regarding claim 14 of the IA, Claims 4 and 5 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the 3GPP based core comprises a 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) core or a 5G core.
Regarding claim 15 of the IA, Claim 6 of Patent '579 claims the same features of destroying the container based on removal of the UE from the network.
Regarding claim 16 of the IA, Claim 7 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the container is instantiated in a first mobile datacenter of a plurality of mobile datacenters, wherein the broker is further associated with at least one other container instantiated in at least one other mobile datacenter of the plurality of mobile datacenters, and wherein the broker is further used by the network controller to identify other QoE events from the at least one other container for at least one other UE.
Regarding claim 17 of the IA, Claim 8 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein identifying the QoE events from the UE container is based on a first subscription message facilitated by the broker between the network controller and the container, wherein identifying the other QoE events from the at least one other container is based on a second subscription message facilitated by the broker between the network controller and the at least one other container, wherein the first subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the QoE events published by the container, and wherein the second subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the other QoE events published by the at least one other container.
Regarding Non-transitory computer readable storage medium Claim 18 of the IA, Claim 18 of Patent '579 similarly claims non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the computing device cause a computing device to effectuate operations comprising:
instantiating, based on the UE profile for the UE for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; (The instant claim 1 of the IA having omitted some features claimed in Claim 9 of Patent '579. Additionally, the IA claim limitation requiring that the UE is seeking to associate with a network is substantially the same as the claimed limitation in Patent ‘579 recited as “… detecting a user equipment (UE) entering a network…”)
instantiating a broker associated with the per-UE container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the per-UE container for the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 1 and Patent '579 claim 9.)
But, while IA claim 18 recites causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE, which is similar to Claim 18 of Patent '579 which features steering subsequent traffic through the per-UE container the difference is that Claim 18 of the IA requires policy enforcement in general which is not solely limited to the policy enforcement feature of steering traffic as claimed in Claim 18 of Patent '579.
(The differences between the IA's claim 18 and Claim 18 of Patent '579 is the substitution of similar claim language "detecting a UE entering a network" and the claimed fetch step in response to a determined "UE seeking to associated with a network.")
But Patent ‘579 is silent on the claim limitation reciting “causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE” as required by claim 18 of the IA.
However, Wang teaches wherein the MEC platform comprising a virtualized architecture which uses quality policy for a connected UE to perform policy enforcement of user plane traffic associated with the UE [Wang, ¶57]. This disclosure of Wang teaches the causing a container (virtualized architecture) to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE (perform policy enforcement of the user plane traffic associated with the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 18 of Patent '579 directed to steering subsequent traffic through the instantiated per-UE container of a radio network edge, with the teachings of Wang which teaches utilizing MEC mechanisms for controlling quality enforcement for services provided to mobile devices serviced by a RAN. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services instead of relying on a core network to provide the services.
But even though the Patent ‘579 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, the combination fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
However, RAO teaches wherein as the UE moves along path 912, virtual network function (VNF) 914 can also be moved to different locations within the mobile edge computing (MEC) resource 902. If the MEC 902 is a distributed computing resource, it may be composed of resources at different data centers. Moving of VNF 914 to 914’ and 914” may be done to reduce the inter-MEC network traffic or to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. This disclosure teaches the IA claim limitation of “the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value”, wherein the container is comprised of at least one VNF as supported by ¶30-¶31 of the Specification of the IA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 18 of Patent '579 directed to “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, with the teachings of RAO which that as the UE moves along a path through the network to different locations within the MEC (or in the distributed MEC), that the VNF may be moved inter-MEC to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services by ensuring that the instantiation of containers are maintained/moved/relocated within proximity to the location of the UE as the UE moves throughout the network according to a measurable metric of latency.
Regarding claim 19 of the IA, Claim 19 of Patent '579 claims the same features of wherein the core network functions comprise a function of a "Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) based core, and wherein the 3GPP based core comprises a 5G core or 4G/long-term evolution core.
Regarding claim 20 of the IA, Claim 20 of Patent '579 claims similar features of wherein the traffic comprises signaling traffic or data traffic.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,513 (hereinafter '513), in view of RAO et al. US 2018/0109590 (hereinafter RAO).
Regarding System claim 1 of the instant application (hereinafter IA), Claim 1 of Patent '513 recites system having claimed features comprising one or more processors; and memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to effectuate operations comprising:
instantiating, based on the UE profile for the UE for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; (The instant claim 1 of the IA having omitted some features claimed in Claim 1 of Patent '513 is otherwise substantially the same as the claimed limitation in Patent ‘513.)
instantiating a broker associated with the UE container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the UE container for the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 1 and Patent '513 claim 1 other than referencing the container for the UE as a per-UE container which is a term substitution with the same meaning given the context within the claims.)
Causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to the traffic associated with the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 1 and Patent '513 claim 1 other than referencing the container for the UE as a per-UE container which is a term substitution with the same meaning given the context within the claims.)
But even though the Patent ‘513 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, it fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
However, RAO teaches wherein as the UE moves along path 912, virtual network function (VNF) 914 can also be moved to different locations within the mobile edge computing (MEC) resource 902. If the MEC 902 is a distributed computing resource, it may be composed of resources at different data centers. Moving of VNF 914 to 914’ and 914” may be done to reduce the inter-MEC network traffic or to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. This disclosure teaches the IA claim limitation of “the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value”, wherein the container is comprised of at least one VNF as supported by ¶30-¶31 of the Specification of the IA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 1 of Patent '513 directed to “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, with the teachings of RAO which that as the UE moves along a path through the network to different locations within the MEC (or in the distributed MEC), that the VNF may be moved inter-MEC to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services by ensuring that the instantiation of containers are maintained/moved/relocated within proximity to the location of the UE as the UE moves throughout the network according to a measurable metric of latency.
Regarding claim 2 of the IA, Claim 2 of Patent '513 claims the same features of steering the traffic through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises signaling traffic.
Regarding claim 3 of the IA, Claim 3 of Patent '513 claims the same features of steering the traffic through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises data traffic.
Regarding claim 4 of the IA, Claim 4 of Patent '513 claims the same features of destroying the UE container based on removal of the UE from the network.
Regarding claim 5 of the IA, Claim 5 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the UE container is instantiated in a first mobile datacenter of a plurality of mobile datacenters, wherein the broker is further associated with at least one other UE container instantiated in at least one other mobile datacenter of the plurality of mobile datacenters, and wherein the broker is further used to identify other QoE events from the at least one other per-UE container for at least one other UE.
Regarding claim 6 of the IA, Claim 6 of Patent '513 claims the same features of identifying the QoE events from the container is based on a first subscription message facilitated by the broker between the system and the container, wherein identifying the other QoE events from the at least one other container is based on a second subscription message facilitated by the broker between the system and the at least one other container, wherein the first subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the QoE events published by the container, and wherein the second subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the other QoE events published by the at least one other container.
Regarding claim 7 of the IA, Claim 7 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the core network functions comprise a function of a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) based core.
Regarding claim 8 of the IA, Claim 8 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the 3GPP based core comprises a 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) core or a 5G core.
Regarding claim 9 of the IA, Claim 9 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein traffic for the UE is tunneled through a plurality of virtual switches.
Regarding Method claim 10 of the IA, Claim 10 of Patent '513 recites method comprising:
instantiating, by a network controller, and based on the user equipment (UE) profile for the UE for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; (The instant claim 1 of the IA having omitted some features claimed in Claim 10 of Patent '513 is otherwise substantially the same as the claimed limitation in Patent ‘513.)
instantiating, by the network controller, a broker associated with the container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the container for the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 10 and Patent '513 claim 10.)
Causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to the traffic associated with the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 10 and Patent '513 claim 10 other than referencing the container for the UE as a per-UE container which is a term substitution with the same meaning given the context within the claims.)
But even though the Patent ‘513 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, it fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
However, RAO teaches wherein as the UE moves along path 912, virtual network function (VNF) 914 can also be moved to different locations within the mobile edge computing (MEC) resource 902. If the MEC 902 is a distributed computing resource, it may be composed of resources at different data centers. Moving of VNF 914 to 914’ and 914” may be done to reduce the inter-MEC network traffic or to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. This disclosure teaches the IA claim limitation of “the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value”, wherein the container is comprised of at least one VNF as supported by ¶30-¶31 of the Specification of the IA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 10 of Patent '513 directed to “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, with the teachings of RAO which that as the UE moves along a path through the network to different locations within the MEC (or in the distributed MEC), that the VNF may be moved inter-MEC to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services by ensuring that the instantiation of containers are maintained/moved/relocated within proximity to the location of the UE as the UE moves throughout the network according to a measurable metric of latency.
Regarding claim 11 of the IA, Claim 11 of Patent '513 claims the same features of steering the traffic associated with the UE through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises signaling traffic.
Regarding claim 12 of the IA, Claim 12 of Patent '513 claims the same features of steering the traffic associated with the UE through the container, and wherein the traffic comprises data traffic.
Regarding claim 13 of the IA, Claim 13 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the core network functions comprise a function of a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) based core.
Regarding claim 14 of the IA, Claims 14 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the 3GPP based core comprises a 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) core or a 5G core.
Regarding claim 15 of the IA, Claim 15 of Patent '513 claims the same features of destroying the container based on removal of the UE from the network.
Regarding claim 16 of the IA, Claim 16 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the container is instantiated in a first mobile datacenter of a plurality of mobile datacenters, wherein the broker is further associated with at least one other container instantiated in at least one other mobile datacenter of the plurality of mobile datacenters, and wherein the broker is further used by the network controller to identify other QoE events from the at least one other container for at least one other UE.
Regarding claim 17 of the IA, Claim 17 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein identifying the QoE events from the UE container is based on a first subscription message facilitated by the broker between the network controller and the container, wherein identifying the other QoE events from the at least one other container is based on a second subscription message facilitated by the broker between the network controller and the at least one other container, wherein the first subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the QoE events published by the container, and wherein the second subscription message is for subscribing to messages regarding the other QoE events published by the at least one other container.
Regarding Non-transitory computer readable storage medium Claim 18 of the IA, Claim 18 of Patent '513 similarly claims non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the computing device cause a computing device to effectuate operations comprising:
instantiating, based on the UE profile for the UE for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; (The instant claim 18 of the IA having omitted some features claimed in Claim 18 of Patent '513. Additionally, the IA claim limitation requiring that the UE is seeking to associate with a network is substantially the same as the claimed limitation in Patent ‘513 recited as “… detecting a user equipment (UE) entering a network…”)
instantiating a broker associated with the per-UE container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the per-UE container for the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 1 and Patent '513 claim 18.)
Causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to the traffic associated with the UE; and
(No notable differences between the claimed features of IA's Claim 18 and Patent '513 claim 18 other than referencing the container for the UE as a per-UE container which is a term substitution with the same meaning given the context within the claims.)
But even though the Patent ‘513 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, it fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
But even though the Patent ‘513 claims “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, it fails to disclose the claim limitation of the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value.
However, RAO teaches wherein as the UE moves along path 912, virtual network function (VNF) 914 can also be moved to different locations within the mobile edge computing (MEC) resource 902. If the MEC 902 is a distributed computing resource, it may be composed of resources at different data centers. Moving of VNF 914 to 914’ and 914” may be done to reduce the inter-MEC network traffic or to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. This disclosure teaches the IA claim limitation of “the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value”, wherein the container is comprised of at least one VNF as supported by ¶30-¶31 of the Specification of the IA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the claimed features of Claim 18 of Patent '513 directed to “instantiating, based on the UE profile associated with the UE, a per-user equipment (per-UE) container representing the UE, the per-UE container in proximity to a radio network edge connected to the UE…”, with the teachings of RAO which that as the UE moves along a path through the network to different locations within the MEC (or in the distributed MEC), that the VNF may be moved inter-MEC to ensure that communications latency is below a threshold. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to use the MEC deployed within the RAN to improve the user experience and more effectively handle latency-sensitive services by ensuring that the instantiation of containers are maintained/moved/relocated within proximity to the location of the UE as the UE moves throughout the network according to a measurable metric of latency.
Regarding claim 19 of the IA, Claim 19 of Patent '513 claims the same features of wherein the core network functions comprise a function of a "Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) based core, and wherein the 3GPP based core comprises a 5G core or 4G/long-term evolution core.
Regarding claim 20 of the IA, Claim 20 of Patent '513 claims similar features of wherein the traffic comprises signaling traffic or data traffic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
Note: This indication of allowed claims is over the prior art. The ODP Rejection is pending and must be overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The Examiner has conducted a search of Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches the instantiating, based on a user equipment (UE) profile for a UE seeking to associate with a network, a container representing the UE, the container being instantiated at a location relative to the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value, wherein the container includes core network functions for the UE; instantiating a broker associated with the container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the container for the UE; and causing the container to effect policy enforcement relating to traffic associated with the UE, in combination with all the other claim limitations as recited in the independent claims.
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 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RAO et al. US 2018/0109590
“[¶4] … by placing the network function near the radio edge, a low latency can be achieved, but as the UE moves through the network, the network function also has to move so that it can maintain a similar topological distance from the UE and keep the communications latency sufficiently low. This requires network support for moving the function through the network. This may be achieved through using a plurality of network functions in different locations in the network. As the UE moves through the network, the NF associated with the UE is changed to the next NF in the network along the UE's path. The NF can be modelled by a set of state information characterizing the NF. By moving the state information associated with the NF to a second NF, the network can have the second NF effectively pick up where the original NF left off. This allows the NF serving the UE to effectively move through the network with the UE. In embodiments where the NF is virtualized in the network, the network may undertake the instantiation and configuration of virtualized NFs (VNFs) along a projected path of the UE…”
However RAO does not teach wherein the low latency is corresponds to the container being instantiated at a location relative the UE that results in a latency between the container and the UE being less than a threshold value even though it does disclose the ability to instantiate containers to achieve a low latency with respect to the UE and its location within the network as the UE moves through the network. Additionally, RAO does not teach the claim limitation of “instantiating a broker associated with the container, wherein the broker is used to identify Quality of Experience (QoE) events from the container for the UE”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights