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 .
Drawings
Figure 21 and Figures 3A-B2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 84, 92 and 100 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,968,274. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the present invention are disclosed by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,968,274.
Present Application
11,968,274
Claim 84
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code;
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a management web portal, a request for an application service;
translate, with an application service management function, a service level agreement of the requested application service to a specification of an application slice;
translate the service level agreement of the application service into a service level agreement of a communication service; and
establish an interface with a communication service management function for communication of the service level agreement of the communication service.
Claim 1
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
manage an application service using a management web portal; request, using the management web portal, the application service with a given service level agreement from a catalogue of offered application services;
translate the service level agreement of the requested application service to a specification of an application slice
Claim 7
wherein the application service management function is configured to translate the service level agreement associated with the application service into a service level agreement associated with a communication service.
Claim 8
wherein the application service management function is configured to request the communication service from a communication service management function.
Claims 92 and 100 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 82.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 85-91 and 93-99 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.
Regarding claims 84, 92 and 100, the prior cited art fails to disclose in the context of the claimed invention:
“translate, with an application service management function, a service level agreement of the requested application service to a specification of an application slice;
translate the service level agreement of the application service into a service level agreement of a communication service”
In the context in the present application, an application slice is a partition of network slice into smaller slices for tenants. The disclosed infrastructure enables multiple tenants to have MEC slices with each having isolated management capabilities. The claim limitations describe translating a request for an application service into the underlying requirements of the application slice and communication service. The prior art fails to disclose a method that translates application slice SLA requirements into supporting network slicing requirements. .
Cominardi, Luca, et al., "MEC Support For Network Slicing: Status And Limitations From A Standardization Viewpoint", (cited in IDS dated December 20, 2024) – discloses a multi-tenant MEC environment but fails to discloses an application service management function as claimed that performs application slice SLAs translations.
Sabella et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2022/0086864- discloses tracking latency over MEC links and non-MECs to consider additional latency that impacts end-to-end performance.
Senarath et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2018/0332485- discloses a plurality of network slicing services.
The prior cited art singly or in combination does not teach the totality of the independent claims when read in light of the specification.
But for the double patenting rejections, claims 84, 92 and 100 would be allowable.
Conclusion
Relevant Prior art:
Seetharaman et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2022/0021590-discloses a method to adjust service requirements based on a user’s entitlement level including subscriber class, service category, usage limit, and priority.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M COUSINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7746. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00pm 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
1 Specification para 0043- ETSI MEC0 03 V2. 2. 1 ( 2 02 0-12)
2 Specification para 0045- The proposed solution from “MEC Support for Network Slicing: Status
and Limitations from a Standardization Viewpoint”
Prosecution Insights