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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0366428) in view of Thakkar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0135957).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining performance data relating to a plurality of data centers in a cellular network (performance metrics, [0029, 0037], mobile carrier network, [0017], fig. 1);
predicting future computing resources to be used by each of the plurality of data centers based on the current computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers and the performance data (such decisions to add and/or remove instantiated VNFs. Alternatively or in addition, such decisions can be based on historical resource map information and/or predictive future resource map information. Such predictions can be implemented according to predetermined algorithms. Alternatively or in addition, such predictive actions can be based on machine learning, e.g., artificial intelligence. Namely, current and/or future network decisions can be based at least in part on the success and/or failure of prior decisions. In this manner, one or more algorithms can be tailored to improve network performance over time, [0061]); and
selecting a network function to add based on the predicted future computing resources of each of the plurality of data centers ([0061]).
Shaw does not expressly disclose determining current computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers based on the performance data; and
selecting a target data center from the plurality of data centers based on the computing resources of each of the plurality of data centers; and
employing the target data center to run a selected network function of the cellular network.
Thakkar teaches that it was known in the art to be determining current computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers based on the performance data (central orchestrator 210 executes a matching algorithm based on current usage levels of the virtual resources in the data centers, [0064], fig. 10); and
selecting a target data center from the plurality of data centers based on the computing resources of each of the plurality of data centers (At step 1020, central orchestrator 210 executes a matching algorithm based on current usage levels of the virtual resources in the data centers that remained after the filtering steps of 1016 and 1018 and the resource requirements specified in the VNF descriptor. Any well-known algorithm for possible candidates (in this example, data centers) against requirements (in this example, VNF requirements) may be employed. If there are no matches (step 1022, No), central orchestrator 210 at step 1024 returns an error in response to the network service request. If there are matches (step 1022, Yes), central orchestrator 210 at step 1026 selects the best matched data center and issues an intent to deploy the VNF to the best-matched data center, [0064], fig. 10); and
employing the target data center to run a selected network function of the cellular network (central orchestrator 210 at step 1030 issues the command to deploy the VNF to the best-matched data center, [0065], fig. 10).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shaw by including the data center selection as taught by Thakkar.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination, in order to meet speed and latency goals of mobile networks ([0008], Thakkar).
Regarding claim 2, Shaw discloses wherein determining the current computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers comprises: employing at least one artificial intelligence mechanism on the performance data to estimate the current computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers ([0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Shaw discloses wherein predicting the future computing resources to be used by each of the plurality of data centers comprises: employing at least one artificial intelligence mechanism on the performance data to estimate the future computing resources to be used by each of the plurality of data centers ([0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Thakkar discloses wherein selecting the target data center from the plurality of data centers comprises: determining if the future computing resources of the target data center are predicted to be below a selected threshold; and in response to determining that the future computing resources of the target data center are predicted to be below the selected threshold, selecting the target data center to run the selected network function ([0064], fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Shaw discloses wherein employing the target data center to run the selected network function comprises: terminating the selected network function previously running on another data center (remove instantiated VNFs, [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
Prior art was not found that explicitly teaches or fairly suggests “determine whether to transfer a selected network function of the cellular network from a first data center of the plurality of data centers to a second data center of the plurality of data centers based on the computing resources used by the first data center” in combination with “select the second data center from the plurality of data centers based on the computing resources of the second data center” and “employ the second data center to run the selected network function”, as outlined in independent claim 8.
Prior art was not found that explicitly teaches or fairly suggests “determine current and predicted computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers based on the performance data” in combination with “load-balance the plurality of network functions across the plurality of data centers based on the current and predicted computing resources being used by each of the plurality of data centers”, as outlined in independent claim 15.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are allowed because they are dependent upon one of the claims mentioned above.
These limitations are considered allowable only in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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 P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights