Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 25, 2024 and February 27, 20235 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not in narrative form and the abstract is not on a separate sheet apart from any other text. The abstract is in the form of a claim. The abstract comprises the text “Figure 1.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the claim 1, the claim uses the term, “them.” The term should be replaced with the claim element being referenced by the term in order to clearly identify claimed elements. In this case, “them” should be amended to “the service related requests.” Claims 5 and 9 are objected to for the same reason as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
See MPEP 2181(A) The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
Such claim limitation(s) are:
“apparatus is configured to perform:” “select a category, determine data identifying one service related request,” “generate an inquiry through an application programming interface to a network entity, the inquiry,” “apply, in response to a detection of a receipt of information indicative on that the inquiry failed to generate a match with data accessible by the network entity, a predefined template,” “generate a request to an external network” in claim 5;
“the apparatus further configured to perform: generate… a response to update the respective service related request” in claim 6;
“the apparatus is configured to prevent a re-generation of the inquiry” in claim 7;
“the apparatus is configured to retrieve an identifier of the respective service” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is unclear antecedent basis for “the service related request” in the preamble and in the body because the claim recites more than one service related requests, “service related requests.” Furthermore, in the body, the claim recites “the at least one service related request” followed by “the service related request.” It is not clear whether “the service related request” is referring to “the at least one service related request.” Claims 5 and 9 are rejected to for the same reason as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Prior art of record discloses determining a busy port situation (Anisimov et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0209797, para. [0130] initiate a call request. if a chosen port is busy, SWE responds with a busy reply. Burbridge US Patent Publication No. 2017/0041404, para. [0028] target 201 can determine if there is a port that is not as busy as Port 0 that the connection request was received on. target 201 can reject the connection attempt at Port 0. Allen et al. US Patent Publication No. 2009/0307378, para. [0119] Port busy is returned if the port cannot honor the request.).
Krishna et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0152379 discloses generating an inquiry through an interface to a network entity, the inquiry carrying the data identifying the at least one service related request (para. [0196] if a service function wants to query the status of a request, it can send a query API command to the connection server using the request identifier for that request. connection server can use the state machine for that request identifier to quickly provide the status of the request to the service function).
Kancharla et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0250239 discloses generating an inquiry through an interface to a network entity, the inquiry carrying the data identifying the at least one service related request (para. [0078] determining a status of a request. processing platform 230 may retrieve the hash based on an identifier that is associated with the request and that is identified by the query. para. [0079] query the in-memory data structure 411 for the shell corresponding to the request. determine statuses of requests and/or results associated with each target associated with the query based on the shell).
Gati et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0211356 discloses generating an inquiry through an interface to a network entity, the inquiry carrying the data identifying the at least one service related request (para. [0081] check requests table 820 may include fields including a record for each ad hoc API call. fields may also include a request ID that tracks the request. para. [0082] agent 414, 428 runs the check(s) associated with the request and obtains results).
Bell et al. US Patent No. 10,353,729 discloses generating an inquiry through an interface to a network entity, the inquiry carrying the data identifying at least one request, wherein the inquiry failed to generate a match with data accessible by the network entity (col. 15, lines 3-9. during runtime operations, error recovery manager 136 can detect a service is nonresponsive if the service fails to respond to one or more status request messages or responds to one or more status request messages with invalid data (e.g., a sequence number or unique identifier that does not match a sequence number or unique identifier included in a status request message)).
Williams et al. US Patent Publication No. 2025/0021987 discloses applying a predefined template to generate a request (para. [0190] message data may include a message template and/or an objective of the message. para. [0211] user provides the email template, including template fields such as “Ticket ID” that may be populated with the ticket ID of the newly generated ticket).
Ho et al. US Patent Publication No. 2023/0199028 discloses applying a predefined template to include data descriptive of a failed request (para. [0055] extract relevant table names, an identifier for the rule 122A, a request status (e.g., “FAILED”), or any other suitable items of information from the metric formula 604 and insert those items of information into a query template 606 to generate the query 310)
Zhang et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0160514 discloses applying a predefined template to include data descriptive of a service, and generating a request to an external network being responsible for the service, the request is generated by transferring the template to the external network (para. [0034] populates the template with runtime related information, resource-aware metadata, and provisions specific to service recovery agents 142. assembler 120 populates the templates to provide respective error handler operators, which are available for dispatch to the service recovery agents 142 when service-error or failure).
However, the prior art of record do not teach, individually or combination, every limitation of the invention including, “selecting a category storing the service related requests ended up to an erroneous state due to a busy port situation in the accomplishment of the service related request, determining data identifying one service related request ended up to the erroneous state due to the busy port situation, generating an inquiry through an application programming interface to a network entity, the inquiry carrying the data identifying the at least one service related request, applying, in response to a detection of a receipt of information indicative on that the inquiry failed to generate a match with data accessible by the network entity, a predefined template to include data descriptive of the service related request failed to cause the match with the data accessible by the network entity, generating a request to an external network being responsible for the service requested with the service related request, the request is generated by transferring the template to the external network.”
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445