DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (19/206,288) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 19/206,288, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed May 13, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1):
The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
The Specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “network device” as recited in claims 11–16.1 See MPEP § 608.01(o).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting2
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).3
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of Singh et al. (US 12,328,225 B2; filed Apr. 26, 2023; the ‘225 Patent).
Regarding claims 1–20 of the instant App., although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application
the ‘225 Patent
Claim 1: A provisioning system, 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, comprising:
selecting a logical provisioning template to facilitate a performance of a network provisioning task to provision a network service within a network,
based on the logical provisioning template, identifying a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task, and
executing the logical commands of the programming object to control service implementation equipment to perform the network provisioning task,
wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision the network service,
wherein the service implementation equipment is part of a network, and
wherein the network provisioning task comprises a provisioning of the network service for equipment that is part of the network, in accordance with the logical provisioning template.
Claim 1: Provisioning equipment, 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, comprising:
receiving a provisioning request for a network provisioning task, based on the network provisioning task,
selecting a logical provisioning template to facilitate a performance of the network provisioning task,
based on the logical provisioning template, identifying a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task, and
executing the logical commands of the programming object to control first service implementation equipment to perform the network provisioning task,
wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision a broadband internet service,
wherein the first service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network, and
wherein the network provisioning task comprises a provisioning of the broadband internet service for first node equipment that is part of the broadband network, in accordance with the logical provisioning template.
Claim 2. The provisioning system of claim 1, wherein the logical commands comprise business logic associated with the network provisioning task independent of commands used by the service implementation equipment.
Claim 2. The provisioning equipment of claim 1, wherein the logical commands comprise business logic associated with the network provisioning task independent of commands used by the first service implementation equipment.
Claim 3. The provisioning system of claim 2, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a workflow for coordinated performance of processes of the business logic of the network provisioning task.
Claim 3. The provisioning equipment of claim 2, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a workflow for coordinated performance of processes of the business logic of the network provisioning task.
Claim 4. The provisioning system of claim 3, wherein the executing of the programming object controls the service implementation equipment according to the workflow.
Claim 4. The provisioning equipment of claim 3, wherein the executing of the programming object controls the first service implementation equipment according to the workflow.
Claim 5. The provisioning system of claim 1, wherein the programming object is comprised of a non-compiled computer script interpreted by a scripting engine to control the service implementation equipment.
Claim 5. The provisioning equipment of claim 1, wherein the programming object is comprised of a non-compiled computer script interpreted by a scripting engine to control the first service implementation equipment.
Claim 6. The provisioning system of claim 1, wherein the executing of the logical commands of the programming object further controls other service implementation equipment to perform the network provisioning task concurrent with the service implementation equipment performing the network provisioning task.
Claim 6. The provisioning equipment of claim 1, wherein the executing of the logical commands of the programming object further controls second service implementation equipment to perform the network provisioning task concurrent with the first service implementation equipment performing the network provisioning task.
Claim 7. The provisioning system of claim 1, wherein the logical provisioning template further comprises a template usable to provision a label-switching network connection, wherein the service implementation equipment further comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the network, and wherein the network provisioning task comprises a provisioning of the label-switching network connection for other equipment that is part of the network, in accordance with the logical provisioning template.
Claim 7. The provisioning equipment of claim 1, wherein the logical provisioning template further comprises a template usable to provision a label-switching network connection, wherein the first service implementation equipment further comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network, and wherein the network provisioning task comprises a provisioning of the label-switching network connection for second node equipment that is part of the broadband network, in accordance with the logical provisioning template.
Claim 8. The provisioning system of claim 1, wherein the executing of the logical commands of the programming object comprises executing the logical commands using application data from a data store.
Claim 8. The provisioning equipment of claim 1, wherein the executing of the logical commands of the programming object comprises executing the logical commands using application data from a data store.
Claim 9. The provisioning system of claim 8, wherein the data store comprises the application data for a data-centric performance of the network provisioning task.
Claim 9. The provisioning equipment of claim 8, wherein the data store comprises the application data for a data-centric performance of the network provisioning task.
Claim 10. The provisioning system of claim 8, wherein the executing of the programming object controlling the service implementation equipment, and wherein the operations further comprise, validating the controlling the service implementation equipment based on validation data from the data store.
Claim 10. The provisioning equipment of claim 8, wherein the executing of the programming object controlling the first service implementation equipment, and wherein the operations further comprise, validating the controlling the first service implementation equipment based on validation data from the data store.
Claim 11. A method, comprising:
facilitating, by a network device comprising a processing system including a processor, selection of a logical provisioning template by an operations device to facilitate a performance of a network provisioning task; and
facilitating, by the network device, receiving an indication that service implementation equipment was controlled by the operations device to perform the network provisioning task,
wherein the operations device controlled the service implementation equipment based on a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task, and
wherein the programming object was identified based on the logical provisioning template.
Claim 11. A method, comprising:
facilitating, by a network device comprising a processing system including a processor, communicating a provisioning request for a network provisioning task to an operations device, wherein, based on the network provisioning task, the operations device selects a logical provisioning template to facilitate a performance of the network provisioning task;
facilitating, by the network device, selecting an infrastructure engine to provision network equipment; and
facilitating, by the network device, receiving an indication that service implementation equipment was controlled by the operations device to perform the network provisioning task,
wherein the operations device controlled the service implementation equipment based on a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task, and
wherein the programming object was identified based on the logical provisioning template,
wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision one of a broadband internet service wherein the service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network or a label-switching network connection, wherein the service implementation equipment comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network that is part of a broadband network.
Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the logical commands comprise business logic associated with the network provisioning task independent of commands used by the service implementation equipment.
Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the logical commands comprise business logic associated with the network provisioning task independent of commands used by the service implementation equipment.
Claim 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a workflow for coordinated performance of processes of the business logic of the network provisioning task.
Claim 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a workflow for coordinated performance of processes of the business logic of the network provisioning task.
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the programming object controls the service implementation equipment according to the workflow.
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the programming object controls the service implementation equipment according to the workflow.
Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the programming object is comprised of a non-compiled computer script interpreted by a scripting engine to control the service implementation equipment.
Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the programming object is comprised of a non-compiled computer script interpreted by a scripting engine to control the service implementation equipment.
Claim 16. The method of claim 11, wherein an executing of the logical commands of the programming object comprises executing the logical commands using application data from a data store,
wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision one of a broadband internet service wherein the service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network or a label-switching network connection, and wherein the service implementation equipment comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network that is part of a broadband network.
Claim 16. The method of claim 11, wherein an executing of the logical commands of the programming object comprises executing the logical commands using application data from a data store.
Claim 11. wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision one of a broadband internet service wherein the service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network or a label-switching network connection, wherein the service implementation equipment comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network that is part of a broadband network.
Claim 17. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor of network equipment, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a programming object comprising logical commands that, when implemented by an operations device, facilitates a performance of a network provisioning task according to a logical provisioning template; and
receiving an indication that service implementation equipment was controlled by the operations device to perform the network provisioning task,
wherein the operations device controlled the service implementation equipment based on a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task, and
wherein the programming object was identified based on the logical provisioning template, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision one of a network service.
Claim 17. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by processing system including a processor of network equipment, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
communicating a provisioning request for a network provisioning task to an operations device, wherein, based on the network provisioning task, the operations device selects a logical provisioning template to facilitate a performance of the network provisioning task;
identifying a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task; and
receiving an indication that service implementation equipment was controlled by the operations device to perform the network provisioning task,
wherein the operations device controlled the service implementation equipment based on a programming object comprising logical commands for the performance of the network provisioning task, and
wherein the programming object was identified based on the logical provisioning template, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template usable to provision one of a broadband internet service
wherein the service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network or a label-switching network connection, wherein the service implementation equipment comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network that is part of a broadband network.
Claim 18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17,
wherein the logical commands comprise business logic associated with the network provisioning task independent of commands used by the service implementation equipment, and
wherein the service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network or a label-switching network connection, wherein the service implementation equipment comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network that is part of a broadband network.
Claim 18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the logical commands comprise business logic associated with the network provisioning task independent of commands used by the service implementation equipment.
Claim 17: wherein the service implementation equipment comprises broadband network gateway equipment that is part of a broadband network or a label-switching network connection, wherein the service implementation equipment comprises packet-forwarding equipment that is part of the broadband network that is part of a broadband network.
Claim 19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a workflow for coordinated performance of processes of the business logic of the network provisioning task.
Claim 19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a workflow for coordinated performance of processes of the business logic of the network provisioning task.
Claim 20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein an executing of the logical commands of the programming object controls other service implementation equipment to perform the network provisioning task concurrent with the service implementation equipment performing the network provisioning task.
Claim 20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein an executing of the logical commands of the programming object controls other service implementation equipment to perform the network provisioning task concurrent with the service implementation equipment performing the network provisioning task.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(i) claim 1, line 12, “a network” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to the network introduced in line 6 or not.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to the network introduced in line 6. See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
(ii) claim 1, line 13, “a provisioning of the network service” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to the provisioning of a network service in line 6 or not.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Chen ‘012, Banerjee, and Lipe
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Chen et al. (US 7,058,012 B1; filed July 26, 2001)(Chen ‘012) in view of Banerjee et al. (US 2023/0047108 A1; PCT filed Jan. 17, 2020), and in further view of Lipe et al. (US 7,584,169 B2; filed Mar. 11, 2005).
Regarding claim 1, while Chen ‘012 teaches a provisioning system (“a general purpose computer system 1000 suitable for executing software programs that implement the methods and processes of the network management system” at 10:23–26; figs. 10 and 11, item 1000), comprising:
a processing system including a processor (fig. 11, item 1051); and
a memory (fig. 11, item 1053) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
selecting a logical provisioning template (Yes to item 332 at fig. 4; “At step 332, the network management system determines if there is a default equipment template corresponding to the new equipment to be provisioned.” at 6:19–22) to facilitate a performance of a network provisioning task (fig. 4, item 334) to provision service implementation equipment (“the new equipment to be provisioned” at 6:21–22; fig. 2, items 210–216; “a new card to be provisioned is introduced” at 5:58; “DS3, DS1, OC3, OC48, OC12, OC192 equipment and facilities” at 7:8–9; “provided functionality of the inserted card.” at 4:15) within a network (fig. 1, item 100; intended use in italics),
based on the logical provisioning template, identifying parameter values (“Default equipment templates contain a set of predetermined or predefined values associated with various parameters utilized for provisioning of the corresponding type of equipment.” at 6:24–27) for the performance of the network provisioning task (intended use in italics), and
executing the parameter values (“the network management system automatically provisions the equipment utilizing the parameter values defined by the default equipment template at step 334” at 6:32–35) to control service implementation equipment (fig. 2, items 210–216; “a new card to be provisioned is introduced” at 5:58; “provided functionality of the inserted card.” at 4:15; “DS3, DS1, OC3, OC48, OC12, OC192 equipment and facilities” at 7:8–9) to perform the network provisioning task (intended use in italics),
wherein the logical provisioning template comprises a template (Yes to item 332 at fig. 4; “At step 332, the network management system determines if there is a default equipment template corresponding to the new equipment to be provisioned.” at 6:19–22) usable to provision the service implementation equipment (intended use in italics),
wherein the service implementation equipment (“a new card to be provisioned is introduced” at 5:58; “The cards inserted into the slots of a particular TMO switch determines the functionality of that TMO switch.” at 4:12–14) is part of a network (fig. 1, item 100), and
wherein the network provisioning task comprises a provisioning of the service implementation equipment (fig. 4, item 334; 6:31–34) for equipment (fig. 2, items 210–216) that is part of the network, in accordance with the logical provisioning template,
Chen ‘012 does not teach (A) the provisioning the service implementation equipment being provisioning a network service; and (B) the parameter values being a programming object comprising logical commands.
(A)
Banerjee teaches provisioning a network service (“provision of services of the sets of computing device nodes” at ¶ 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Chen ‘012’s provisioning the service implementation equipment to be provisioning a network service as taught by Banerjee “to solve localization problems like failure detection, downtime prediction, maintenance planning, cost-effective logistics and supply chain planning efficiently.” Banerjee ¶ 140. Moreover, to guarantee that necessary resources are ready and operation when needed, thereby reducing downtime and delays.
(B)
Lipe teaches a programming object comprising logical commands (“programming object comprises a set of programming instructions” at claim 1; “In object-oriented programming, an object is a set of programming instructions” at 1:20–21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Chen ‘012’s parameter values to be a programming object comprising logical commands as taught by Lipe for “identifying attributes of programming objects.” Lipe 1:18–19. By identifying the attributes, it is easier for developers to understand what information each object represents to improve code readability and reduce ambiguity.
Regarding claim 2, while Chen ‘012 teaches wherein parameter values comprise business logic (“the network management system automatically provisions the equipment utilizing the parameter values defined by the default equipment template at step 334” at 6:32–35) associated with the network provisioning task (fig. 4, item 334) independent of commands used by the service implementation equipment (Chen ‘012 does not teach or suggest the parameter values being dependent on commands used by the inserted cards),
Chen ‘012 does not teach the parameter values being logical commands.
Lipe teaches a programming object comprising logical commands (“programming object comprises a set of programming instructions” at claim 1; “In object-oriented programming, an object is a set of programming instructions” at 1:20–21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Chen ‘012’s parameter values to be a programming object comprising logical commands as taught by Lipe for “identifying attributes of programming objects.” Lipe 1:18–19. By identifying the attributes, it is easier for developers to understand what information each object represents to improve code readability and reduce ambiguity.
Chen ‘012, Banerjee, Lipe, and Chen ‘306
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Chen ‘012 in view of Banerjee, in further view of Lipe, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0169306 A1; filed Dec. 9, 2015)(Chen ‘306).
Regarding claim 8, Chen ‘012 does not teach wherein the executing of the logical commands of the programming object comprises executing the logical commands using application data from a data store.
Chen ‘306 teaches executing logical commands using application data from a data store (“executing instructions (e.g., applications 334) using data (e.g., application data 336) from memory 330” at ¶ 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Chen ‘012/Banerjee/Lipe combination’s executing of the logical commands of the programming object to comprise executing the logical commands using application data from a data store as taught by Chen ‘306 “for improved performance.” Chen ‘306 ¶ 50.
Regarding claim 9, Chen ‘012 does not teach wherein the data store comprises the application data for a data-centric performance of the network provisioning task.
Chen ‘306 teaches wherein a data store comprises application data (“executing instructions (e.g., applications 334) using data (e.g., application data 336) from memory 330” at ¶ 78) for a data-centric performance of the network provisioning task (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Chen ‘012/Banerjee/Lipe combination’s data store to comprise the application data for a data-centric performance of the network provisioning task as taught by Chen ‘306 “for improved performance.” Chen ‘306 ¶ 50.
Chen ‘012 and Lipe
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Chen ‘012 in view of Lipe.
Regarding claim 11, while Chen ‘012 teaches a method, comprising:
facilitating, by a network element (“a network element (NE)” and “NEs” at 5:33–42; Yes to fig. 4, item 332 would not occur but for NEs’ involvement at fig. 3A, items 302–306), selection of a logical provisioning template (Yes to fig. 4, item 332 is part of figs. 3A and 4, item 330) by an operations device (“a general purpose computer system 1000 suitable for executing software programs that implement the methods and processes of the network management system” at 10:23–26; figs. 10 and 11, item 1000) to facilitate a performance of a network provisioning task (intended use in italics); and
facilitating, by the network element, receiving an indication (“At step 306, the network management system compares the physical equipment in the NEs with the provisioned equipment in the system’s database.” at 5:42–45) that service implementation equipment (“the provisioned equipment in the system’s database” at 5:43–44 indicates network management system item 1000 once provisioned the equipment at fig. 4, item 334) was controlled by the operations device to perform the network provisioning task (intended use in italics),
wherein the operations device controlled the service implementation equipment based on parameter values (“Default equipment templates contain a set of predetermined or predefined values associated with various parameters utilized for provisioning of the corresponding type of equipment.” at 6:24–27) for the performance of the network provisioning task (intended use in italics), and
wherein the parameter values were identified based on the logical provisioning template (fig. 4, item 334; “the network management system automatically provisions the equipment utilizing the parameter values defined by the default equipment template at step 334.” at 6:33–35),
Chen ‘012 does not teach (A) the network element being a network device comprising a processing system including a processor; and (B) the parameter values being a programming object comprising logical commands.
Lipe teaches a network device (fig. 2, item 200) comprising a processing system including a processor (fig. 2, item 202); and
a programming object comprising logical commands (“programming object comprises a set of programming instructions” at claim 1; “In object-oriented programming, an object is a set of programming instructions” at 1:20–21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Chen ‘012’s network element to be a network device comprising a processing system including a processor and for Chen ‘012’s parameter values to be a programming object comprising logical commands as taught by Lipe for “identifying attributes of programming objects.” Lipe 1:18–19. By identifying the attributes, it is easier for developers to understand what information each object represents to improve code readability and reduce ambiguity.
Regarding claim 12, claim 2 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-11671316-B2 and US-8621444-B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes the Specification and claims 17–20 recite the term “network equipment.” The Examiner recommends replacing the term “network device” as recited in claims 11–16 with “network equipment.”
2 The Examiner will determine whether Applicants’ reply to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is compliant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1) (reciting
[a] complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
). In the event the reply is non-compliant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), the Examiner will issue a Notice of Non-Compliant Response.
3 See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (CCPA 1969).
Prosecution Insights