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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The Abstract states “discloses a method” and “by means”.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 9 states “A system” comprising “a building module configured to build… ”, “configuration module configured to receive… “, and “a service providing module configured to call… “.
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.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the examiner applies the guidance under MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (ie. process)
Claim 9 is directed to a system (ie. machine)
Claims 10-17 are directed to an article of manufacture.
Independent claims 1 and 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
“step S1: building a network architecture using a software-defined network”
The claim places no limits on how this building is performed. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “building a network” encompasses a human mentally assigning parts of a network. This “building” limitation can be reasonably performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. The claim therefore recites a mental process. Also, this claim limitation could be a mathematical expression of a network structure, since the claim does not specifically describe the architecture. The claim therefore recites a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
A “method”, “A system”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program” (These are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receiving, by the network architecture, configuration information to configure a virtual network topology” (receiving data, which is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receiving" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“calling, by the network architecture, an intelligent machine learning service providing module to execute an MAML algorithm and a transfer learning algorithm to provide a user with machine learning services, the machine learning services comprising quality of transmission estimation, fault management, and resource allocation” (an insignificant post-solution activity, which does not give instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). Also, “calling” an a module to execute an algorithm can be interpreted as “transmit”, which is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "calling" in the context of this claim can encompass mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step B:
These additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
A “system” comprising “building module”, “configuration module” and “a service providing module” claim limitations: Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receiving” claim limitation: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
“calling“ claim limitation: Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 [MPEP 2106.05(g)] and Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Even when all the elements are considered individually and in ordered combination, they do not amount of significantly more because the additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer networks), and do not recite any improvement to the technical field.
Claims 2-8 and 10-17 have been reviewed and do not recite any additional elements that would overcome this 101 rejection. Therefore, claims 1-17 are patent ineligible
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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (“Sharma”) [PGPUB 2018/0337862] in view of Fakoor et al. (“Fakoor”) [USPAT 12,217,137] and Lee et al. (“Lee”) [PGPUB 2022/0232579].
Regarding claim 1, the Sharma reference discloses a method for providing virtual network topology configuration services [Sharma; para 0024-0026 and 0088], characterized by comprising:
step S1: building a network architecture using a software-defined network [Sharma; figure 1; para 0024];
step S2: receiving, by the network architecture, configuration information to configure a virtual network topology [Sharma; figure 7; para 0025-0026]; and
step S3: calling, by the network architecture, to provide with quality of transmission estimation [“to provide” is intended use of the calling rather than any distinct description of any of the claimed invention’s limitations of “a user with machine learning services machine learning services comprising quality of transmission estimation, fault management, and resource allocation”; ie. generate and collect QoS transmission metrics for display; figure 3 para 0004, 0073, and 0102].
The Sharma reference does not specifically disclose “based on model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML) and transfer learning” and “calling an intelligent machine learning service providing module to execute an MAML algorithm and a transfer learning algorithm to provide a user with machine learning services, the machine learning services comprising fault management and resource allocation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Fakoor reference discloses “based on model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML) and transfer learning” and “calling an intelligent machine learning service providing module to execute an MAML algorithm and a transfer learning algorithm to provide a user with machine learning services” [“to provide” is intended use; ie. calling a service to execute MAML algorithm and transfer learning algorithm to provide a service; Fakoor; col 1, lines 48-63 and col 3, lines 19-57]. The Sharma and Fakoor references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to performance of connected devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of MAML algorithm, taught by Fakoor, into the system, taught by Sharma. The motivation for doing so would have been to have an agent quickly identify tasks to be performed.
The combination of Sharma-Fakoor does not disclose “machine learning services comprising fault management and resource allocation”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee reference discloses the machine learning services comprising fault management and resource allocation [ie. channel quality requirements (“fault management”) and resource allocation; Lee; fig 7; para 0011-0012, 0016, 0030, and 0039-0040]. The Sharma-Fakoor and Lee references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to monitor performance of a network slice [Lee; para 0010-0011]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of different services, taught by Lee, into the system, taught by Sharma-Fakoor. The motivation for doing so would have been to have the ability to properly allocate network resources to support network slices and associated requirements [Lee; para 0012].
Regarding claim 9, the apparatus of claim 9 performs similar steps as the method of claim 1. The combination of Sharma-Fakoor-Lee teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “system” and modules are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0088 and 0166-0167. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Sharma-Fakoor-Lee.
Regarding claim 10, the article of manufacture of claim 10 performs similar steps as the method of claim 1. The combination of Sharma-Fakoor-Lee teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above. The additional limitation of a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that the computer program, when executed by a processor” is rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0166-0167. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Sharma-Fakoor-Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 11-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if they overcome the 101 rejection and are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skobodzinski et al. [USPAT 10,652,046] describes creating a virtual network based on a mesh network.
Griva et al. [NPL: “Model-Agnostic…”] describes the MAML algorithm with Internet of Things.
Sartzetakis [NPL: “Accurate Quality… “] describes using machine learning for quality of transmission estimation in networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458