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 is responsive to Application 18/855,821 filed 10/10/2024 in which claims 1-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 37 are presented for examination
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13 and 18 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.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 define2 a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. In this case, the specification recites in [0107] that the computer-readable storage medium may be a transitory or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 22, 23 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sarathchandra et al (US 2022/0255797 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sarathchandra teaches a method performed by a managing node for handling a service comprising functions deployed in a communication network (Sarathchandra: Fig. 6; DPE/managing node managing SFs), the method comprising;
obtaining an indication of a measured parameter related to communications between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [107], [0116] DPE obtains context information associated with SFs); and
triggering an updating of a deployment packaging of the functions based on the obtained indication (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], [0116] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 15, Sarathchandra teaches a method performed by a network node for handling a service comprising functions deployed in a communication network (Sarathchandra: Fig. 6; DPE/managing node managing SFs), the method comprising:
measuring a parameter related to communications between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [107], [0116] DPE obtains context information associated with SFs); and
providing to a managing node an indication of the measured parameter (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], [0116] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 22, Sarathchandra teaches a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method for handling a service comprising functions deployed in a communication network (Sarathchandra: Fig. 6; DPE/managing node managing SFs), the method comprising:
obtaining an indication of a measured parameter related to communications between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [107], [0116] DPE obtains context information associated with SFs); and
triggering an updating of a deployment packaging of the functions based on the obtained indication (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], [0116] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 23, Sarathchandra teaches a managing node for handling a service comprising functions deployed in a communication network (Sarathchandra: Fig. 6; DPE/managing node managing SFs), wherein the managing node is configured to:
obtain an indication of a measured parameter related to communications between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [107], [0116] DPE obtains context information associated with SFs); and
trigger an updating of a deployment packaging of the functions based on the obtained indication (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], [0116] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 37, Sarathchandra teaches a network node for handling a service comprising functions deployed in a communication network (Sarathchandra: Fig. 6; DPE/managing node managing SFs), wherein the network node being configured to:
measure a parameter related to communications between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [107], [0116] DPE obtains context information associated with SFs); and
provide to a managing node an indication of the measured parameter (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], [0116] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 2, Sarathchandra teaches wherein triggering (603) the updating of the deployment packaging comprises ordering redeployment of the functions based on the obtained indication (Sarathchandra: Figs. 7; [0107], [0125], [0131] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain/order based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 3, Sarathchandra teaches wherein triggering (603) the updating of the deployment packaging further comprises initiating a re-addressing of packets communicated within the service, which re-addressing is based on the ordered redeployment of the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 7; [0107], [0125], [0131] dynamically selecting/updating the SFs chain/order, address based on context information associated with the SFs).
Regarding claim 5, Sarathchandra teaches wherein the measured parameter indicates intensity of traffic, and/or communication cost, between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0083], the context information maybe congestion).
Regarding claim 6, Sarathchandra teaches wherein the indication indicates a co-location of two or more functions in the communication network (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0110], SFs located in a smartphone).
Regarding claim 7, Sarathchandra teaches wherein the indication indicates a separation of two or more functions in the communication network (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], SFs separated in the system).
Regarding claim 6, Sarathchandra teaches wherein the functions comprise one or more of microservices, micro functions, components, subservices and/or and subfunctions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0073]-[0074], [0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Sarathchandra teaches wherein obtaining the indication of the measured parameter comprises receiving the indication from a network node, or measuring the parameter at the managing node (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0107], [0116]).
Regarding claim 11, Sarathchandra teaches wherein triggering the updating of the deployment packaging one or both: is performed during run-time of the service; and comprises changing layout of the functions in the communication network (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0072]-[0073]; [0103]).
Regarding claim 16, Sarathchandra teaches wherein one or both: the measured parameter indicates one or both intensity and communication cost, of traffic between the functions (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0083], the context information maybe congestion) and the indication indicates one or both of a co-location and a separation of two or more functions in the communication network (Sarathchandra: Figs. 6-7; [0110], SFs located in a smartphone).
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 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarathchandra et al (US 2022/0255797 A1) in view of
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Sarathchandra does not explicitly disclose wherein at least the indicated measured parameter is fed into a machine learning model and the machine learning model outputs a result related to the updating of the deployment packaging of the functions.
Hong teaches wherein at least the indicated measured parameter is fed into a machine learning model and the machine learning model outputs a result related to the updating of the deployment packaging of the functions (Hong: [008]-[0011], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sarathchandra wherein at least the indicated measured parameter is fed into a machine learning model and the machine learning model outputs a result related to the updating of the deployment packaging of the functions as disclosed by Hong to provide a system for predicting network function resources (Hong: Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KODZOVI ACOLATSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10 am to 6pm.
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, Avellino Joseph can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights