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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 2, the first occurrence of “JSON” should be spelled out.
In claim 20, line 2, the first occurrence of “XML” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards a signal per se.
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim(s) call(s) for a machine-readable medium; however, a machine-readable medium is not defined as non-transitory in the specification. This may include signals which is not statutory. The claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please check In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim(s) be further amended to positively recite at least one non-transitory computer readable or accessible medium within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 8, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Tripathi et al (“Tripathi”, US 20230342658).
Regarding Claim 1, Tripathi teaches a system comprising:
a memory configured to store computer executable instructions (par 53);
and one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to (par 53):
receive a request comprising a provisioning instruction for a set of network resources of a network, the network comprising a plurality of network resources (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request.),
wherein the set of the network resources from the plurality of network resources is associated with a service provider (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request. The service provider is the service system 404.);
validate the provisioning instruction relating to the set of network resources based on a draft snapshot relating to the set of network resources (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request. The service provider is the service system 404. The draft snapshot is the deployment topology 500.);
and based on the validation, cause to selectively provision the set of network resources from the plurality of network resources of the network based on the provisioning instruction (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request. The service provider is the service system 404. The draft snapshot is the deployment topology 500. The selective provisioning is the resource deployment (e.g., business services provisioning) in response to the deployment request.),
wherein the selective provisioning of the set of network resources is performed based on service provider data of the service provider associated with the set of network resources (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request. The service provider is the service system 404. The draft snapshot is the deployment topology 500. The selective provisioning is the resource deployment (e.g., business services provisioning) in response to the deployment request. The service provider data is the topology confidence score.).
Regarding Claim 3, Tripathi teaches the system of claim 1.
Tripathi further teaches wherein the network provides a service including at least one of:
a software as a service (SaaS) (par 41; par 120),
an infrastructure as a service (IaaS) (par 43),
a platform as a service (PaaS) (par 42),
or a virtual network (par 62).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Tripathi teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 15.
Tripathi further teaches wherein the set of network resources comprises at least one of:
a router (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; par 26),
a switch (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; par 26),
a firewall (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; par 26),
a virtual machine (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; par 76),
or a database (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; par 76).
Regarding Claim 17, Tripathi teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 15.
Tripathi further teaches wherein validating the provisioning instruction comprises checking the provisioning instruction against predefined policies or rules (par 73; par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request. The service provider is the service system 404. The draft snapshot is the deployment topology 500. The predefined policies or rules is the output from the ML model or the data from knowledge base used to validate the request.).
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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi in view of Hu et al (“Hu”, US 10778537).
Regarding Claim 2, Tripathi teaches the system of claim 1.
Tripathi does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: based on the selective provisioning, output a network architecture indicating a node-level view of the set of network resources having updated provisioning information.
Hu teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: based on the selective provisioning, output a network architecture indicating a node-level view of the set of network resources having updated provisioning information (Col. 9 lines 10-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tripathi with the user interface of Hu because it allows for users to visually view changes to network topology, giving more context into how the network topology is structured and/or impacted.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 2.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi in view of Loffredo (“Loffredo”, US 20090037520).
Regarding Claim 6, Tripathi teaches the system of claim 1.
Tripathi further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive one or more requests comprising corresponding provisioning instructions for corresponding one or more sets of network resources, the one or more sets of network resources being associated with corresponding one or more service providers (par 81; par 106; Fig. 4, elements {402, 404, 406A, 421A}, par 67-70; The request/provisioning instruction is the deployment request. The service provider is the service system 404. The draft snapshot is the deployment topology 500.).
Tripathi does not explicitly teach generate a request queue for storing the one or more requests, the request queue indicating a status for each of the one or more requests.
Loffredo teaches generate a request queue for storing the one or more requests, the request queue indicating a status for each of the one or more requests (par 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tripathi with the message queue of Loffredo because it allows for users to know if messages are sent in a timely manner (Loffredo; par 61). Message queues further prevent the system from becoming overloaded with too many incoming messages at once, thereby improving performance.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi and Loffredo in view of Strom et al (“Strom”, US 20190312810).
Regarding Claim 7, Tripathi and Loffredo teach the system of claim 6.
Tripathi and Loffredo do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause selective provisioning of the provisioning instructions of the one or more requests during different time periods.
Strom teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause selective provisioning of the provisioning instructions of the one or more requests during different time periods (par 428).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tripathi and Loffredo with the dynamic adjustment of resources of Strom because it allows for the ability to fulfill requests at different time periods that may require different topologies, without having to maintain distinct network topologies (Strom; par 428).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi in view of Call et al (“Call”, US 20030100289).
Regarding Claim 18, Tripathi teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 17.
Tripathi does not explicitly teach wherein validating the provisioning instruction further comprises comparing the provisioning instruction with historical data or previous configurations.
Call teaches wherein validating the provisioning instruction further comprises comparing the provisioning instruction with historical data or previous configurations (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tripathi with the cost calculations of Call because it allows for the implementation of cheaper topologies, thereby reducing cost and saving resources.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi in view of DiPietro et al (“DiPietro”, US 20150154617).
Regarding Claim 19, Tripathi teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 16.
Tripathi further teaches wherein the draft snapshot includes metadata (par 81).
Tripathi does not explicitly teach metadata comprising at least one of: a timestamp, a version number, or an author.
DiPietro teaches metadata comprising at least one of: a timestamp, a version number, or an author (par 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tripathi with the timestamp of DiPietro because it allows for better tracking of network events by knowing when events in a system have occurred.
Regarding Claim 20, Tripathi teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 19.
Tripathi further teaches wherein the draft snapshot is stored (par 81).
Tripathi does not explicitly teach (data) stored in a format selected from the group consisting of JSON and XML.
DiPietro teaches (data) stored in a format selected from the group consisting of JSON and XML (par 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tripathi with the JSON format of DiPietro because it allows for systems coded in different languages to interact and communicate with each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 11-12, the closest prior art of record Tripathi et al (US 20230342658) in view of Hochmuth et al (US 20030055968) in further view of AGARWAL et al (US 20170041690) and in even further view of Dietz et al (US 20170257269) does not teach a system comprising: a memory configured to store computer executable instructions; and one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: receive a request comprising a provisioning instruction for a set of network resources of a network, the network comprising a plurality of network resources, wherein the set of the network resources from the plurality of network resources is associated with a service provider; validate the provisioning instruction relating to the set of network resources based on a draft snapshot relating to the set of network resources; and based on the validation, cause to selectively provision the set of network resources from the plurality of network resources of the network based on the provisioning instruction, wherein the selective provisioning of the set of network resources is performed based on service provider data of the service provider associated with the set of network resources; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate an architecture of the set of network resources based on the provisioning instruction; capture a current snapshot of the generated architecture; and based on a previous draft snapshot of the set of network resources, validate an integrity of the provisioning instruction for the set of network resources by overlaying the current snapshot over the draft snapshot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hochmuth et al (US 20030055968), Abstract - The present invention comprises a method for automatically configuring network resources. The method includes receiving a request from a client for at least one of a plurality of network resources in a network and automatically configuring the at least one of the plurality of network resources and the network in response to the request. The method also includes automatically associating in a client cell the at least one of the plurality of network resources with the client, wherein the client can access the at least one of the plurality of network resources that have been associated with the client in the client cell. In a particular embodiment, the client cell may be a virtual local area network.
AGARWAL et al (US 20170041690), Abstract - A device may receive optical network information associated with an optical network, and may determine a user associated with network resources of the optical network. The network resources may be shared for use by multiple users, including the user. The device may store the optical network information and information that identifies a relationship between the user and the network resources. The device may receive a request for at least a portion of the optical network information associated with the user and the network resources. The device may identify the network resources, associated with the user, based on storing the optical network information and the information that identifies the relationship The device may provide the at least the portion of the optical network information, including information associated with the network resources associated with the user, based on identifying the network resources.
Dietz et al (US 20170257269), Abstract - A system for providing network control and resource management includes a database storing a plurality of network resources. The system also includes a network controller that receives a request for a network resource. The network controller may include an resource manager that determines, based on the request, a set of available network resources from the plurality of network resources. The resource manager may provide the set of available network resources to a client and update the database based on providing the set of available network resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights