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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on March 10, 2026. Claims 1, and 3-6 are amended. Claims 2 is canceled. Examiner withdraws 35 USC 112(f) as necessary correction were made to the claims. Examiner retains the 35 USC 101 rejection for claims 5-7.
Claims 1, and 3-7 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection on 12/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, and 3-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In these claims applicants mention in the second limitation, “transfer the call-arrival to a computing resource”, then in the third limitation, “the call-arrival is to be transferred from another network node to the computing resource” which is generally narrative and indefinite with the invention. Applicants do not point out clearly which options include in the present invention by these conflicting features. Any ordinary skill in the art could not understand what the intent meaning of the claim invention is by using these contradicting features of “transfer the call-arrival to a computing resource” and “the call-arrival is to be transferred from another network node to the computing resource”. Examiner fail to understand what is the meets and bounds of the claim limitations by using the conflicting features like these. In the first limitation, call-arrival directly transfers to a computing resource, then, in the third limitation, call-arrival is to be transferred from another network node to the computing resource? Therefore, these limitations with these ambiguous terms are indefinite with the present application. The examiner will interpret these terms and limitations with the regarding claims as best understood for applying the appropriate art for rejection purposes. Appropriate correction needs to overcome the rejection
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/10/2026 with respect to claims 1, and 3-4 have been considered but are moot in new ground of rejection as the scope and dependency of the claim set has changed.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 with respect to claims 5-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior arts of record fail to disclose the limitation of “a receiver configured to receive, from a third network node, an indication indicating that a first network node stores a packet to be transferred to a computing resource that is configured for each subscriber; and a transmitter configured to indicate configuration information for transferring a packet to the computing resource”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application is directed towards computing resource that is configured for each subscriber. Lidstrom discloses packet-based multimedia network node for providing relevant service level for a first subscriber in a multimedia session with a second subscriber. Multimedia services typically involve transmission of media in different formats and combinations. A service level policy has been defined for each subscriber and updated for the second subscriber if the required service level cannot be allowed in the first subscriber's receive direction according to the original policy of the second subscriber, to allow that network resources are reserved for the session such that the first subscriber will receive media with the required service level. Furthermore, subscribers consume communication services with a service level that is relevant to their subscriptions. The first subscriber may be entitled to a relatively high service level and the second subscriber may be entitled to a relatively lower service level. In that case, the policy of the second subscriber is updated to allow for the high service level in a media transport direction from the second subscriber to the first subscriber. The policy for the first subscriber could also be updated to only allow that network resources are reserved for the session such that the second subscriber will receive media with the relatively lower service level. The policy or policies above is/are updated by temporarily changing data for the corresponding subscriber in a policy database and/or in a subscription profile repository, to be valid during said multimedia session. The network resources are reserved in the first subscriber's receive direction according to the current policy of the second subscriber such that the first subscriber will receive media with his/her required or warranted service level. Additionally, the policy updating unit is further adapted to update the policy to enable an asynchronous session if the subscribers require different service levels. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior art, the rejection is sustained for this claim.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 7 recite similar features to claim 5. Claims 6 depend from one of the respective independent claim, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitation of providing services to computing resources to a subscriber, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (mental process) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language, “receiving and transmitting related data” in the context of this claim encompasses managing computing resources to a subscriber, and is therefore an abstract idea, thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim fails to recite additional element(s). The step is recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which covers the performance of the limitation in the mind of managing, receiving, and transmitting computing resources to a subscriber. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of configuration information for transferring computing resource, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Persuasive arguments/evidence that the claim is not directed to a judicial exception; Persuasive arguments/evidence that the additional elements in the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; or Claim amendments (e.g., removing or adding elements, or changing existing elements) that cause the claim to not be directed to the judicial exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely implementation of the abstract idea on a device and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. receiving and transferring computing resources to a subscriber). The receiving and transferring mechanism is a generic computing operation that does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
To analyze the claim as a whole, considering the additional limitations individually and as an ordered combination, examiner found that just adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply managing partition of a global memory in a multi-node computing system. According to the April 19, 2018 Berkheimer memorandum step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in this case, a citation to a publications as stated in the prior arts. The Office Action has provided factual evidence to support the assertion that at least “receiving and transferring computing resources to a subscriber” were well-understood, routine and conventional. As stated in the independent claims.
These functions (receiving and transferring) are basic functions of a computer, and are “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” previously known to the industry. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the “receiving”, and “transferring” steps represent routine data gathering to perform computer functions. Such steps would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art to identify and apply the computer functionality only. The recited hardware (device) is generic hardware that nearly every computer will include. Considering these elements as an ordered combination adds nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to add significantly more to the exceptions (abstract idea). The claim is not eligible, and Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. Applicant is further requested to have all the independent claims to be consistent. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al (US Publication 2022/0408392) hereafter CHOI, and in view of TAKAYANAGI et al (US Publication 2015/0029841) hereafter TAKAYANAGI.
As per claims 1, and 4, CHOI discloses a network node, and a communication method comprising: a receiver configured to receive a call-arrival from an external terminal or from an external application; and a transmitter configured to transfer the call-arrival to a computing resource that is configured for each subscriber (paragraphs: 7, 30, and 39, wherein it emphasizes receive a access call from a device which will be transferred to a computing resource configure for each user), wherein the receiver stores a packet of the received call-arrival and receives a determination result of whether the call-arrival is to be transferred from another network node to the computing resource, and wherein the transmitter transfers the call-arrival to the computing resource in accordance with the determination result (paragraphs: 6, 32-33, 40-42, and 56, wherein it elaborates that it receives a packet of the access call and receives a result of whether the access request is transferred from another node to the computing resource. Transferring the access request to the computing resource according to the positive result). Although, CHOI mentions about packet of the access request which should be interpreted as packet of the received call-arrival. In the same field of endeavor, TAKAYANAGI discloses packet of the received call-arrival (paragraphs: 14, and 64).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated TAKAYANAGI’s teachings of packet of the received call-arrival with the teachings of CHOI, for the purpose of effectively receive and access the computing resources based on packet of the received call.
As per claim 3, CHOI and in view of TAKAYANAGI discloses the network node, wherein the transmission unit transmitter transfers the call-arrival to the computing resource based on information indicating a termination point of the computing resource configured by the another network node (CHOI, paragraphs: 7, and 25-26).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidstrom et al. (US Publication 2011/0219134) hereafter Lidstrom, in view of Sam Abdi (US Publication 2013/0301521) hereafter Abdi.
As per claim 5, Lidstrom discloses a second network node comprising: a receiver configured to receive, from a third network node, an indication indicating that a first network node stores a packet to be transferred to a computing resource that is configured for each subscriber (paragraphs 0040, 0043, 0065: service connection requests allowing quality requirement with different service levels of subscriptions for the user. With network resources and certain QoS can be established with the requested service); and a transmitter configured to indicate configuration information for transferring a packet to the computing resource (paragraphs 0043, 0059: service level of each participating subscriber can be detected and exchanged between the subscribers containing a service level parameter indicating a required service level for transmitting to the its destination).
As per claim 6, Lidstrom discloses the second network node as claimed in claim 5, wherein in order for the third network node to be able to discover a second network node that manages the computing resource, the transmission unit indicates to a network management node that a computing resource is configured for a subscriber after the computing resource is generated or changed (paragraphs 42-43, 66-68).
Claim 7 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 5.
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Goel (US Patent 10,425,504): discusses A service packet that includes a service call from a source appliance is intercepted at a server. A determination is made that the service call is for an internal service provided by the source appliance and includes client information with client process properties. The service packet is demultiplexed. A determination is made that rule attributes associated with the internal service match the client process properties. The client information is removed from the service packet and the service call is forwarded to the server.
GUNDAMARAJU et al (US Publication 2014/0237576): elaborates that domain name in a mobile network session for use in applying mobile policy and enforcement functions based on the domain name. A computing device receives a packet associated with a request from a user equipment to access a domain at a server. The computing device determines a traffic type associated with the packet, the traffic type including one of Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) traffic, Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) traffic, and non HTTP or HTTPS traffic. The computing device determines a domain name based on the traffic type and determines a service to apply to the packet based on the domain name.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights