DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 is presented for examination.
Specification
3. The objection of the specification is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendments/remarks.
Claim objections
4. The objection to claims 1, 9, and 17 is/are withdrawn in light of amendments/remarks.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, and 9 is withdrawn since the terminal disclaimer has been filed has been approved.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s argument filed on 05/07/2026 with respect claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that Iglesias et al. (US 11,095,543 B1) fails to teach or suggest the limitation of establish a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer. As recited in claim 1, and similar feature in claims 9 and 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts the Iglesias et al. (US 11,095,543 B1) in pages 5 and 6 teaches the such limitation. For example, AWS Direct Connect is leveraged to provide connectivity between DISH’s RAN network and the AWS Cloud. Each Local Zone is connected over 2*100G Direct Connect links for redundancy. Direct Connect in combination with Local Zone provides a sub 10 msec Midhaul connectivity between DISH’s on-prem RAN and BEDC. End-to-end SR-MPLS provides connectivity from cell sites to Local Zone and AWS region via Overlay Network using the vRTRs. Through this DISH has the ability to extend multiple Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF)from RAN to the AWS Cloud. See page 5.
In telco-grade networks, resiliency is at the heart of design. It’s vital to maintain the targeted service-level agreements (SLAs), comply with regulatory requirements and support seamless failover of services. While redundancy and resiliency are addressed at various layers of the 5G stack, we will focus here on transport availability in failure scenarios. High availability and geo-redundancy are NF dependent, while some NFs are required to maintain state. High Availability: High availability is achieved by deploying two redundant NFs in two separate availability zones within a single VPC. Failover within an AZ can be recovered within the region without the need to route traffic to other regions. The in-region networking uses the underlay and overlay constructs, which enable on-prem traffic to seamlessly flow to the standby NF in the secondary AZ if the active NF becomes unavailable. Geo-Redundancy is achieved by deploying two redundant NFs in two separate availability zones in more than one region. This is achieved by interconnecting all VPCs via inter-region Transit Gateway and leveraging vRTR for overlay networking. The overlay network is built as a full-mesh enabling service continuity using the NFs deployed across NDCs in other regions during outage scenarios (e.g., Markets, B-EDCs, RDCs, in us-east-2 can continue to function using the NDC in us-east-1). See page 6.
Also, the applicant contends that Iglesias fails to teach or suggest the limitation of “remove the first redundant link; and add a second redundant link between the third node in the third data center layer and a second node in the second data center layer,” and provides absolutely no description of the specifically claimed establishment of a first redundant link between a first node in a first data center layer and a third node in a third data center layer; such that the first redundant link is removed in response to detecting that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds a threshold failure rate and a second redundant link is added between the third node in the third data center layer and a second node in the second data center layer. See the applicant’s remark on page 11.
The Examiner directs the applicant’s attention to that the claim 1 is silent regarding to that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds a threshold failure rate and a second redundant link is added between the third node in the third data center layer and a second node in the second data center layer. “Emphasis added.” Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts the Iglesias in column 2, lines 32-48; column 9, lines 22-44 & 55-67 and Fig. 5 teaches the such limitation. For example, As discussed herein, a “failover” (or “failing over”) of a VNF may refer to the instantiation, provisioning, activation, etc. of the VNF at a different site, data center, server, facility, etc. than a current site, data center, server, facility, etc. (referred to herein simply as “data center” for brevity). The failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover). The failover procedure may also include propagating the change to one or more other VNFs or network elements, such as routers, border controllers, Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (“DHCP”) systems, or the like, such that the failed over VNF may continue to send and/or receive traffic with minimal or no interruption after the VNF has been failed over to another data center. See column 2, lines 32-48.
As shown in FIG. 3, for example, RAS 101 may determine (at 306) that VNF_1 should be failed over to a data center other than data center 203-1. For example, a given remediation model 113 that is associated with identified classification model 103 may indicate that the particular KPIs 207 associated with VNF_1 indicate a potential failure or incompatibility between attributes of data center 203-1 and VNF_1. In such a scenario, remediation model 113 may indicate that such failover event may be remediated by failing VNF_1 over to another data center, without needing to failover other VNFs. In some embodiments, RAS 101 may select a particular data center (e.g., may select data center 203-3 out of a set of candidate data centers that includes at least data center 203-2 and data center 203-3) based on one or more suitable factors. For example, RAS 101 may select data center 203-3 based on geographical proximity of data center 203-3 to data center 203-1 (e.g., data center 203-3 may be closer to data center 203-1 than data center 203-2 is to data center 203-1), a configuration of data center 203-3, available and/or type of resources associated with data center 203-3, and/or other factors based on which data center 203-3 is differentiated from data center 203-2. See column 9, lines 22-44.
RAS 101 may further deactivate (at 310) VNF_1 at data center 203-1, and propagate the failover to one or more network elements. For example, RAS 101 may instruct a controller, hypervisor, etc. of data center 203-1 to de-provision, deactivate, etc. the previously active instance 205-1 of VNF_1. RAS 101 may, for example, cause one or more routing tables, hostnames, or the like associated with data center 203-1 to be updated to reflect the failed over instance 305 of VNF_1. In some embodiments, data center 203-1, RAS 101, and/or one or more other devices or systems may propagate this change using dynamic routing techniques, Border Gateway Protocol (“BGP”) techniques, and/or other suitable route propagation techniques. column 9, lines 55-67. For the Applicant’s convenience, see Fig. 5 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As been described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since VNF moved to a second data center layer the first redundant link at the router will be removed, obviously in the routing table, since the changes have been propagated to the router as well. Emphasis added.
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.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Iglesias et al. (US 11,095,543 B1) "herein after as Iglesias " in view of Latif, Ammar at al. (Telco Meets AWS Cloud: Deploying DISH’s 5G Network in AWSCloud; AWS for Industries; 27 FEB 2022) “herein after as Latif.)
As per claim 1:
Iglesias substantially teaches or discloses a system, comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer instructions to (see column 21, lines 19-23, herein Memory 1230 may include any type of dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 1220, and/or any type of non-volatile storage device that may store information for use by processor 1220): establish a data center hierarchy of a cellular network, wherein the data center hierarchy includes a first data center layer, a second data center layer, and a third data center layer (see column 2, lines 58-61, herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs, and Fig. 1); detecting a failure rate of the first data center layer; and in response to detecting that a failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds a threshold failure rate (see column 2, lines 51-56, herein RAS 101 may identify failover conditions (e.g., based on KPIs associated with one or more VNFs) and effect a failover of a set of VNFs (e.g., including the one or more VNFs and/or other VNFs), in order to maintain high availability and performance of the VNFs; column 9, lines 22-29; and column 10, lines 49-64): remove the first redundant link; and add a second redundant link between the third node in the third data center layer and a second node in the second data center layer (see column 2, lines 32-48, As discussed herein, a “failover” (or “failing over”) of a VNF may refer to the instantiation, provisioning, activation, etc. of the VNF at a different site, data center, server, facility, etc. than a current site, data center, server, facility, etc. (referred to herein simply as “data center” for brevity). The failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover). The failover procedure may also include propagating the change to one or more other VNFs or network elements, such as routers, border controllers, Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (“DHCP”) systems, or the like, such that the failed over VNF may continue to send and/or receive traffic with minimal or no interruption after the VNF has been failed over to another data center; column 9, lines 55-63, herein RAS 101 may further deactivate (at 310) VNF_1 at data center 203-1, and propagate the failover to one or more network elements. For example, RAS 101 may instruct a controller, hypervisor, etc. of data center 203-1 to de-provision, deactivate, etc. the previously active instance 205-1 of VNF_1. RAS 101 may, for example, cause one or more routing tables, hostnames, or the like associated with data center 203-1 to be updated to reflect the failed over instance 305 of VNF_1; and Figs. 2-6 [i.e., since VNF moved to a second data center layer the first redundant link at the router will be removed, obviously in the routing table, since the changes have been propagated to the router as well]).
Iglesias does not explicitly teach establish a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer. However, Latif in the same the field of endeavor teaches establish a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer (see page 6, High availability is achieved by deploying two redundant NFs in two separate availability zones within a single VPC, and page 5, AWS Direct Connect is leveraged to provide connectivity between DISH’s RAN network and the AWS Cloud. Each Local Zone is connected over 2*100G Direct Connect links for redundancy). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Iglesias with the teachings of Latif by establishing a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the establishing a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer would have improved the system performance.
As per claim 2:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors establish the data center hierarchy of the cellular network by being configured to further execute the computer instructions to: arrange the first data center layer between the second data center layer and the third data center layer (see column 2, lines 58-61, herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs, and Figs. 2-6).
As per claim 3:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors establish the data center hierarchy of the cellular network by being configured to further execute the computer instructions to: define a first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer to be logically positioned between a second plurality of nodes in the second data center layer and a third plurality of nodes in the third data center layer (see column 7, lines 6-11, herein data centers 203-2 and 203-3 are illustrated in FIG. 2 as blank boxes, to signify that VNFs 205-1 through 205-4 are implemented by data center 203-1 in this scenario. In practice, data centers 203-2 and/or 203-3 may implement one or more other VNFs, and/or other instances of VNFs 205-1, 205-2, 205-3, and/or 205-4, and Figs. 2-6).
As per claim 4:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors establish the data center hierarchy of the cellular network by being configured to further execute the computer instructions to: establish the third data center layer within a cell site of the cellular network; establish the first data center layer within a local data center of the cellular network; and establish the second data center layer within a passthrough edge data center of the cellular network (see column 4, lines 25-46, herein Data center configuration information 109 may indicate configurations of one or more data centers at which particular VNFs (e.g., VNFs associated with KPI source information 107) are implemented. The configuration information may include, for example, types and/or quantities of VNFs installed at particular data centers. For example, first data center configuration information 109 for a first data center may indicate that an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”), User Plane Function (“UPF”), Session Management Function (“SMF”), and Unified Data Management function (“UDM”) associated with a first network slice are implemented at the first data center. Further, second data center configuration information 109 for a different second data center may indicate that an AMF, UPF, SMF, and UDM associated with a different second network slice are implemented at the second data center. Further, third data center configuration information 109 for a different third data center may indicate that one or more elements associated with an Internet Protocol (“IP”) Multimedia Subsystem (“IMS”) core, such as a Proxy CSCF (“P-CSCF”), Serving CSCF (“S-CSCF”), I-CSCF, Home Subscriber Server (“HSS”), and TAS are implemented at the third data center).
As per claim 5:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors remove the first redundant link between the first node in the first data center layer and the third node in the third data center layer prior to adding the second redundant link between the third node in the third data center layer and the second node in the second data center layer (see column 9, lines 55-63, herein RAS 101 may further deactivate (at 310) VNF_1 at data center 203-1, and propagate the failover to one or more network elements. For example, RAS 101 may instruct a controller, hypervisor, etc. of data center 203-1 to de-provision, deactivate, etc. the previously active instance 205-1 of VNF_1. RAS 101 may, for example, cause one or more routing tables, hostnames, or the like associated with data center 203-1 to be updated to reflect the failed over instance 305 of VNF_1, and Figs. 2-6 [Examiner notes: since VNF moved to a second data center layer the first redundant link at the router will be removed, obviously in the routing table, since the changes have been propagated to the router as well]).
As per claim 6:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the computer instructions to: identify the second node as an end point for the second redundant link in response to detecting that a second failure rate of the second data center layer does not exceed the threshold failure rate (see column 10 lines 65-67 & column 11, lines 1-5, although not shown in this figure, RAS 101 may determine that such maximum threshold latency may be satisfied (e.g., not exceeded) if VNF_1 is implemented at one data center 203 and VNF_2 and VNF_3 are implemented at another data center 203. In such an occurrence, RAS 101 may select these two different data centers 203 to implement VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 in the manner outlined above).
As per claim 7:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the computer instructions to: determine a number of nodes in the first data center layer that have failed over a period of time (see column 2, lines 49-56,herein RAS 101 may receive, generate, and/or refine (at 102) one or more sets of models, and correlations between the models, based on which RAS 101 may identify failover conditions (e.g., based on KPIs associated with one or more VNFs) and effect a failover of a set of VNFs (e.g., including the one or more VNFs and/or other VNFs), in order to maintain high availability and performance of the VNFs); and detect that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds the threshold failure rate when the number of nodes in the first data center layer that have failed exceeds a threshold number (see column 10, lines 49-59, herein failover dependencies/constraint information 115, associated with remediation model 113, may indicate that VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 should be implemented by the same data center 203. Additionally, or alternatively, inter-function interfaces/SLA information 111 may indicate that SLAs associated with VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 indicate that these VNFs 205 should be implemented by the same data center 203. For example, inter-function interfaces/SLA information 111 may indicate a maximum threshold latency of communications between VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3. RAS 101 may determine or receive performance metrics information that indicates that a latency of communications between different data centers 203 exceeds the maximum threshold latency, based on which RAS 101 may determine that VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 should be implemented by the same data center).
As per claim 8:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the computer instructions to: determine a number of nodes in the first data center layer that are non-responsive (see column 2, lines 38-41, herein the failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover)); and detect that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds the threshold failure rate when the number of nodes in the first data center layer that are non-responsive exceeds a threshold number (see column 2, lines 58-67 & column 3, lines1-3 herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs. As referred to herein, a “failover condition” may refer to a condition, set of conditions, criteria, or the like, that indicate that a VNF should be failed over from one data center to another. Such failover conditions may include, for example, threshold values associated with one or more particular KPIs or metrics, such as a maximum latency threshold, a minimum throughput threshold, a maximum call failure rate threshold, a minimum call success rate threshold, and/or other suitable types of values, metrics, KPIs, etc).
As per claim 9:
Iglesias substantially teaches or discloses a method, comprising: establishing a data center hierarchy of a cellular network, wherein the data center hierarchy includes a first data center layer, a second data center layer, and a third data center layer (see column 2, lines 58-61, herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs, and Fig. 1); detecting a failure rate of the first data center layer; and in response to detecting that a failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds a threshold failure rate (see column 2, lines 51-56, herein RAS 101 may identify failover conditions (e.g., based on KPIs associated with one or more VNFs) and effect a failover of a set of VNFs (e.g., including the one or more VNFs and/or other VNFs), in order to maintain high availability and performance of the VNFs; column 9, lines 22-29; and column 10, lines 49-64): removing the first redundant link between the first node in the first data center layer and the third node in the third data center layer; and adding a second redundant link between the third node in the third data center layer and a second node in the second data center layer (see column 2, lines 32-48, As discussed herein, a “failover” (or “failing over”) of a VNF may refer to the instantiation, provisioning, activation, etc. of the VNF at a different site, data center, server, facility, etc. than a current site, data center, server, facility, etc. (referred to herein simply as “data center” for brevity). The failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover). The failover procedure may also include propagating the change to one or more other VNFs or network elements, such as routers, border controllers, Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (“DHCP”) systems, or the like, such that the failed over VNF may continue to send and/or receive traffic with minimal or no interruption after the VNF has been failed over to another data center; column 9, lines 55-63, herein RAS 101 may further deactivate (at 310) VNF_1 at data center 203-1, and propagate the failover to one or more network elements. For example, RAS 101 may instruct a controller, hypervisor, etc. of data center 203-1 to de-provision, deactivate, etc. the previously active instance 205-1 of VNF_1. RAS 101 may, for example, cause one or more routing tables, hostnames, or the like associated with data center 203-1 to be updated to reflect the failed over instance 305 of VNF_1; and Figs. 2-6 [i.e., since VNF moved to a second data center layer the first redundant link at the router will be removed, obviously in the routing table, since the changes have been propagated to the router as well]).
Iglesias does not explicitly teach establishing a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer. However, Latif in the same the field of endeavor teaches establishing a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer (see page 6, High availability is achieved by deploying two redundant NFs in two separate availability zones within a single VPC, and page 5, AWS Direct Connect is leveraged to provide connectivity between DISH’s RAN network and the AWS Cloud. Each Local Zone is connected over 2*100G Direct Connect links for redundancy). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Iglesias with the teachings of Latif by establishing a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the establishing a first redundant link between a first node in the first data center layer and a third node in the third data center layer would have improved the system performance.
As per claim 10:
Iglesias teaches that wherein establishing the data center hierarchy of the cellular network comprises: assigning the first data center layer as being arranged between the second data center layer and the third data center layer (see column 2, lines 58-61, herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs, and Figs. 2-6).
As per claim 11:
Iglesias teaches that wherein establishing the data center hierarchy of the cellular network comprises: defining a first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer to be logically positioned between a second plurality of nodes in the second data center layer and a third plurality of nodes in the third data center layer (see column 7, lines 6-11, herein data centers 203-2 and 203-3 are illustrated in FIG. 2 as blank boxes, to signify that VNFs 205-1 through 205-4 are implemented by data center 203-1 in this scenario. In practice, data centers 203-2 and/or 203-3 may implement one or more other VNFs, and/or other instances of VNFs 205-1, 205-2, 205-3, and/or 205-4, and Figs. 2-6).
As per claim 12:
Iglesias teaches that wherein establishing the data center hierarchy of the cellular network comprises: running the third data center layer within a cell site of the cellular network; running the first data center layer within a local data center of the cellular network; and running the second data center layer within a passthrough edge data center of the cellular network (see column 4, lines 25-46, herein Data center configuration information 109 may indicate configurations of one or more data centers at which particular VNFs (e.g., VNFs associated with KPI source information 107) are implemented. The configuration information may include, for example, types and/or quantities of VNFs installed at particular data centers. For example, first data center configuration information 109 for a first data center may indicate that an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”), User Plane Function (“UPF”), Session Management Function (“SMF”), and Unified Data Management function (“UDM”) associated with a first network slice are implemented at the first data center. Further, second data center configuration information 109 for a different second data center may indicate that an AMF, UPF, SMF, and UDM associated with a different second network slice are implemented at the second data center. Further, third data center configuration information 109 for a different third data center may indicate that one or more elements associated with an Internet Protocol (“IP”) Multimedia Subsystem (“IMS”) core, such as a Proxy CSCF (“P-CSCF”), Serving CSCF (“S-CSCF”), I-CSCF, Home Subscriber Server (“HSS”), and TAS are implemented at the third data center).
As per claim 13:
Iglesias teaches that wherein removing the first redundant link occurs prior to adding the second redundant link (see column 9, lines 56-64, herein RAS 101 may instruct a controller, hypervisor, etc. of data center 203-1 to de-provision, deactivate, etc. the previously active instance 205-1 of VNF_1. RAS 101 may, for example, cause one or more routing tables, hostnames, or the like associated with data center 203-1 to be updated to reflect the failed over instance 305 of VNF_1).
As per claim 14:
Iglesias teaches that selecting the second node as an end point for the second redundant link in response to detecting that a second failure rate of the second data center layer does not exceed the threshold failure rate (see column 10 lines 65-67 & column 11, lines 1-5, although not shown in this figure, RAS 101 may determine that such maximum threshold latency may be satisfied (e.g., not exceeded) if VNF_1 is implemented at one data center 203 and VNF_2 and VNF_3 are implemented at another data center 203. In such an occurrence, RAS 101 may select these two different data centers 203 to implement VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 in the manner outlined above).
As per claim 15:
Iglesias teaches that determining a number of nodes in the first data center layer that have failed over a period of time (see column 2, lines 49-56,herein RAS 101 may receive, generate, and/or refine (at 102) one or more sets of models, and correlations between the models, based on which RAS 101 may identify failover conditions (e.g., based on KPIs associated with one or more VNFs) and effect a failover of a set of VNFs (e.g., including the one or more VNFs and/or other VNFs), in order to maintain high availability and performance of the VNFs); and detecting that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds the threshold failure rate when the number of nodes in the first data center layer that have failed exceeds a threshold number (see column 10, lines 49-59, herein failover dependencies/constraint information 115, associated with remediation model 113, may indicate that VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 should be implemented by the same data center 203. Additionally, or alternatively, inter-function interfaces/SLA information 111 may indicate that SLAs associated with VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 indicate that these VNFs 205 should be implemented by the same data center 203. For example, inter-function interfaces/SLA information 111 may indicate a maximum threshold latency of communications between VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3. RAS 101 may determine or receive performance metrics information that indicates that a latency of communications between different data centers 203 exceeds the maximum threshold latency, based on which RAS 101 may determine that VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 should be implemented by the same data center).
As per claim 16:
Iglesias teaches that determining a number of nodes in the first data center layer that are non-responsive (see column 2, lines 38-41, herein the failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover)); and detecting that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds the threshold failure rate when the number of nodes in the first data center layer that are non-responsive exceeds a threshold number(see column 2, lines 58-67 & column 3, lines1-3 herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs. As referred to herein, a “failover condition” may refer to a condition, set of conditions, criteria, or the like, that indicate that a VNF should be failed over from one data center to another. Such failover conditions may include, for example, threshold values associated with one or more particular KPIs or metrics, such as a maximum latency threshold, a minimum throughput threshold, a maximum call failure rate threshold, a minimum call success rate threshold, and/or other suitable types of values, metrics, KPIs, etc).
As per claim 17:
Iglesias substantially teaches or discloses a cellular network, comprising: a data center hierarchy, including: a first data center layer having a first plurality of nodes; a second data center layer having a second plurality of nodes; and a third data center layer having a third plurality of nodes (see column 2, lines 58-61, herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs, and Fig. 1), wherein the first data center layer is logically arranged between the second data center layer and the third data center layer (see Figs. 2-6); and a network core configured to; detecting a failure rate of the first data center layer; and in response to detecting that a failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds a threshold failure rate (see column 2, lines 51-56, herein RAS 101 may identify failover conditions (e.g., based on KPIs associated with one or more VNFs) and effect a failover of a set of VNFs (e.g., including the one or more VNFs and/or other VNFs), in order to maintain high availability and performance of the VNFs; column 9, lines 22-29; and column 10, lines 49-64): remove the first redundant link; and add a second redundant link between the third node in the third data center layer and a second node of the second plurality of nodes in the second data center layer (see column 2, lines 32-48, As discussed herein, a “failover” (or “failing over”) of a VNF may refer to the instantiation, provisioning, activation, etc. of the VNF at a different site, data center, server, facility, etc. than a current site, data center, server, facility, etc. (referred to herein simply as “data center” for brevity). The failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover). The failover procedure may also include propagating the change to one or more other VNFs or network elements, such as routers, border controllers, Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (“DHCP”) systems, or the like, such that the failed over VNF may continue to send and/or receive traffic with minimal or no interruption after the VNF has been failed over to another data center; column 9, lines 55-63, herein RAS 101 may further deactivate (at 310) VNF_1 at data center 203-1, and propagate the failover to one or more network elements. For example, RAS 101 may instruct a controller, hypervisor, etc. of data center 203-1 to de-provision, deactivate, etc. the previously active instance 205-1 of VNF_1. RAS 101 may, for example, cause one or more routing tables, hostnames, or the like associated with data center 203-1 to be updated to reflect the failed over instance 305 of VNF_1; and Figs. 2-6 [i.e., since VNF moved to a second data center layer the first redundant link at the router will be removed, obviously in the routing table, since the changes have been propagated to the router as well]).
Iglesias does not explicitly teach establish a first redundant link between a first node of the first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer and a third node of the third plurality of nodes in the third data center layer. However, Latif in the same the field of endeavor teaches establish a first redundant link between a first node of the first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer and a third node of the third plurality of nodes in the third data center layer (see page 6, High availability is achieved by deploying two redundant NFs in two separate availability zones within a single VPC, and page 5, AWS Direct Connect is leveraged to provide connectivity between DISH’s RAN network and the AWS Cloud. Each Local Zone is connected over 2*100G Direct Connect links for redundancy). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Iglesias with the teachings of Latif by establishing a first redundant link between a first node of the first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer and a third node of the third plurality of nodes in the third data center layer. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the establishing a first redundant link between a first node of the first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer and a third node of the third plurality of nodes in the third data center layer would have improved the system performance.
As per claim 18:
Iglesias teaches that the third data center layer is within a cell site; the first data center layer is within a local data center; and the second data center layer is within a passthrough edge data center (see column 4, lines 25-46, herein Data center configuration information 109 may indicate configurations of one or more data centers at which particular VNFs (e.g., VNFs associated with KPI source information 107) are implemented. The configuration information may include, for example, types and/or quantities of VNFs installed at particular data centers. For example, first data center configuration information 109 for a first data center may indicate that an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”), User Plane Function (“UPF”), Session Management Function (“SMF”), and Unified Data Management function (“UDM”) associated with a first network slice are implemented at the first data center. Further, second data center configuration information 109 for a different second data center may indicate that an AMF, UPF, SMF, and UDM associated with a different second network slice are implemented at the second data center. Further, third data center configuration information 109 for a different third data center may indicate that one or more elements associated with an Internet Protocol (“IP”) Multimedia Subsystem (“IMS”) core, such as a Proxy CSCF (“P-CSCF”), Serving CSCF (“S-CSCF”), I-CSCF, Home Subscriber Server (“HSS”), and TAS are implemented at the third data center).
As per claim 19:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the network core is further configured to: determine a number of nodes of the first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer that have failed over a period of time (see column 2, lines 49-56,herein RAS 101 may receive, generate, and/or refine (at 102) one or more sets of models, and correlations between the models, based on which RAS 101 may identify failover conditions (e.g., based on KPIs associated with one or more VNFs) and effect a failover of a set of VNFs (e.g., including the one or more VNFs and/or other VNFs), in order to maintain high availability and performance of the VNFs); and detect that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds the threshold failure rate when the number of nodes in the first data center layer that have failed exceeds a threshold number (see column 10, lines 49-59, herein failover dependencies/constraint information 115, associated with remediation model 113, may indicate that VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 should be implemented by the same data center 203. Additionally, or alternatively, inter-function interfaces/SLA information 111 may indicate that SLAs associated with VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 indicate that these VNFs 205 should be implemented by the same data center 203. For example, inter-function interfaces/SLA information 111 may indicate a maximum threshold latency of communications between VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3. RAS 101 may determine or receive performance metrics information that indicates that a latency of communications between different data centers 203 exceeds the maximum threshold latency, based on which RAS 101 may determine that VNF_1, VNF_2, and VNF_3 should be implemented by the same data center).
As per claim 20:
Iglesias teaches that wherein the network core is further configured to: determine a number of the first plurality of nodes in the first data center layer that are non-responsive (see column 2, lines 38-41, herein the failover may also include de-instantiating, deprovisioning, deactivating, etc. the VNF from the data center that originally implemented, hosted, executed, etc. the VNF (e.g., immediately prior to the failover)); and detect that the failure rate of the first data center layer exceeds the threshold failure rate when the number of nodes in the first data center layer that are non-responsive exceeds a threshold number (see column 2, lines 58-67 & column 3, lines1-3 herein classification models 103 may be used to classify VNFs or sets of VNFs at one or more data centers, in order to determine failover conditions associated with the VNFs. As referred to herein, a “failover condition” may refer to a condition, set of conditions, criteria, or the like, that indicate that a VNF should be failed over from one data center to another. Such failover conditions may include, for example, threshold values associated with one or more particular KPIs or metrics, such as a maximum latency threshold, a minimum throughput threshold, a maximum call failure rate threshold, a minimum call success rate threshold, and/or other suitable types of values, metrics, KPIs, etc).
Examiner Notes
7. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
8. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL; 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069.
The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN ALSHACK/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights