CTNF 19/081,160 CTNF 91223 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim(s) 5,6,11,16 and 17 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. Claim(s) 5, 6, 11, 16, and 17 recite the limitations “facilitating the virtualized core network instance …” which is slightly different from the “ virtual core network instance” recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of this examination, examiner construes “ the virtualized core network instance” recited in claims 5,6,11,16 and 17 to be the same as the “virtual core network instance” recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20, of USPN 12,273,266 B2. Regarding independent claim(s) 1,12 and 20 of the instant application ‘160, the claims recite “ A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: monitoring performance of a first computing device, wherein the monitoring comprises obtaining a performance metric associated with the first computing device; determining that the performance metric does not satisfy a performance metric threshold resulting in a determination; based on the determination, connecting to a virtual core network instance implemented by a second computing device resulting in a connection; in response to the connecting, initializing a virtual router function based on a routing table; and routing, via the virtual router function, network traffic between the virtual core network instance and a third computing device ”, these limitations are disclosed by the following limitations of independent claim(s) 1,10 and 16 of USPN 12,273,266 B2 which recites “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: monitoring performance of a first computing device, wherein the monitoring comprises obtaining a performance metric associated with the first computing device; determining that the performance metric does not satisfy a performance metric threshold resulting in a determination; based on the determination, connecting, via a mobility tunneling protocol comprising a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunneling Protocol (GTP), the system to a virtual core network instance implemented by a second computing device resulting in a connection; configuring a quality of service parameter associated with network traffic transmitted over the connection; in response to the connecting, initializing a virtual router function based on a routing table; and routing, via the virtual router function, the network traffic between the virtual core network instance and a third computing device, communicatively coupled to the system and distinct from the second computing device, wherein control of the routing of the network traffic is based on the quality of service parameter”. That is, the claims of USPN 12,273,266 B2 explicitly disclose all of the limitations of the independent claims of the instant application ‘160 including “monitoring performance of a first computing device, wherein the monitoring comprises obtaining a performance metric associated with the first computing device; determining that the performance metric does not satisfy a performance metric threshold resulting in a determination; based on the determination, connecting to a virtual core network instance implemented by a second computing device resulting in a connection; in response to the connecting, initializing a virtual router function based on a routing table; and routing, via the virtual router function, network traffic between the virtual core network instance and a third computing device”, the subject matter allowed in USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 1, the limitations are met by claim 10 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 2, the limitations are met by claim 10 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 3, the limitations are met by claim 9 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 4, the limitations are met by claim 10 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 5, the limitations are met by claim 11 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 6, the limitations are met by claim 113 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 7, the limitations are met by claim 12 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 8, the limitations are met by claim 13 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 9, the limitations are met by claim 14 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 10, the limitations are met by claim 7 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 11, the limitations are met by claim 15 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 12, the limitations are met by claim 16 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 13, the limitations are met by claim 10 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 14, the limitations are met by claim 9 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 15, the limitations are met by claim 15 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 16, the limitations are met by claim 17 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 17, the limitations are met by claim 3 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 18, the limitations are met by claim 18 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 19, the limitations are met by claim 5 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. As for Claim 20, the limitations are met by claim 1 of USPN 12,273,266 B2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXON F DABIPI whose telephone number is (571)270-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9:00 am – 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /D.F.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 2451 /Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451 Application/Control Number: 19/081,160 Page 2 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 19/081,160 Page 3 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 19/081,160 Page 4 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 19/081,160 Page 5 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 19/081,160 Page 6 Art Unit: 2451 Application/Control Number: 19/081,160 Page 7 Art Unit: 2451
Prosecution Insights