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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1, 5-9, 11, 15-19, 21, 25-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,594,649. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,594,649 in view of Ashwood-Smith et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0,201,374 A1) [hereafter Ashwood-Smith. Claims of the patent does not anticipate detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network as recited in claims 2, 12 and 22 of the instant application. However, Ashwood-Smith in an analogous art teaches deploying VNF in a cellular network (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005], telecommunication networks, mobile network nodes, CDN, ¶ [0025-0026], VNF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Ashwood-Smith into the claims of the patent to provide a method of detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network. The modification would be obvious because NFV provides greater flexibility for a network by implementing network functions that can be moved to and/or instantiated in various locations in the network without the installation and configuration of new physical network devices (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005]). Limitations of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24 are anticipated by the listed claims of the patent.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 15-19, 21, 25-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,892,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,892,007 in view of Ashwood-Smith et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0,201,374 A1) [hereafter Ashwood-Smith. Claims of the patent does not anticipate detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network as recited in claims 2, 12 and 22 of the instant application. However, Ashwood-Smith in an analogous art teaches deploying VNF in a cellular network (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005], telecommunication networks, mobile network nodes, CDN, ¶ [0025-0026], VNF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Ashwood-Smith into the claims of the patent to provide a method of detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network. The modification would be obvious because NFV provides greater flexibility for a network by implementing network functions that can be moved to and/or instantiated in various locations in the network without the installation and configuration of new physical network devices (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005]). Limitations of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24 are anticipated by the listed claims of the patent.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, 21, 25, 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,592,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 15-19, 21, 25-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,237,926. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,237,926 in view of Ashwood-Smith et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0,201,374 A1) [hereafter Ashwood-Smith. Claims of the patent does not anticipate detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network as recited in claims 2, 12 and 22 of the instant application. However, Ashwood-Smith in an analogous art teaches deploying VNF in a cellular network (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005], telecommunication networks, mobile network nodes, CDN, ¶ [0025-0026], VNF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Ashwood-Smith into the claims of the patent to provide a method of detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network. The modification would be obvious because NFV provides greater flexibility for a network by implementing network functions that can be moved to and/or instantiated in various locations in the network without the installation and configuration of new physical network devices (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005]). Limitations of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24 are anticipated by the listed claims of the patent.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11, 15-18, 20, 21, 25-28, 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,749. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,749 in view of Ashwood-Smith et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0,201,374 A1) [hereafter Ashwood-Smith. Claims of the patent does not anticipate detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network as recited in claims 2, 12 and 22 of the instant application. However, Ashwood-Smith in an analogous art teaches deploying VNF in a cellular network (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005], telecommunication networks, mobile network nodes, CDN, ¶ [0025-0026], VNF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Ashwood-Smith into the claims of the patent to provide a method of detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network. The modification would be obvious because NFV provides greater flexibility for a network by implementing network functions that can be moved to and/or instantiated in various locations in the network without the installation and configuration of new physical network devices (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005]). Limitations of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24 are anticipated by the listed claims of the patent.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, 21, 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,370. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-20, 22-31, 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,370 in view of Ashwood-Smith et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0,201,374 A1) [hereafter Ashwood-Smith. Claims of the patent does not anticipate detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network as recited in claims 2, 12 and 22 of the instant application. However, Ashwood-Smith in an analogous art teaches deploying VNF in a cellular network (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005], telecommunication networks, mobile network nodes, CDN, ¶ [0025-0026], VNF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Ashwood-Smith into the claims of the patent to provide a method of detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network. The modification would be obvious because NFV provides greater flexibility for a network by implementing network functions that can be moved to and/or instantiated in various locations in the network without the installation and configuration of new physical network devices (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005]). Limitations of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24 are anticipated by the listed claims of the patent.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, 21, 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,120. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the limitations of the claims of the patent. While the claims of the patent do not specifically recite that the replication policy includes assigning a geographic location, a pod, and a rack for the hardware resources according to the redundancy policy and a placement policy defining an affinity rule and an anti-affinity rule for deployment, the claims of the patent recite first and second policies for allocation and deployment policies. In addition, the specification of the patent describes the redundancy policy and the placement policy as recited in the claims of the instant application. The claims of the patent, when interpreted in view of the details given in the specification, anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 12-14, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10, 13, 14, 16-23, 26, 27, 29-36, 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,367,120 in view of Ashwood-Smith et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0,201,374 A1) [hereafter Ashwood-Smith. Claims of the patent does not anticipate detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network as recited in claims 2, 12 and 22 of the instant application. However, Ashwood-Smith in an analogous art teaches deploying VNF in a cellular network (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005], telecommunication networks, mobile network nodes, CDN, ¶ [0025-0026], VNF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Ashwood-Smith into the claims of the patent to provide a method of detecting an event relating to the service to be provided in a cellular network. The modification would be obvious because NFV provides greater flexibility for a network by implementing network functions that can be moved to and/or instantiated in various locations in the network without the installation and configuration of new physical network devices (Ashwood-Smith, ¶ [0005]). Limitations of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 23, 24 are anticipated by the listed claims of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 are allowable if terminally disclaimed to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. 9,979,602 B1 discloses a method for instantiating a network using a network function virtualization infrastructure (NVFI) pod in a network environment is provided and includes receiving a request to instantiate a logical network topology in the NFVI pod that includes a pre-selected set of interconnected pre-configured hardware resources.
PG Pub. 2019/0,026,168 A1 discloses method for geographic redundancy or dynamic scaling for virtual network functions. Based on information associated with a virtual network function for a detected event, the system determines an amount to increase an available capacity for operation of the virtual network function.
PG Pub. 2014/0,245,297 A1 discloses method for managing hardware resource in a virtualized environment. The system analyzes the resource statistics and optimizes resource allocation when the allocation of the hardware resources to the virtual machines is not optimized.
PG Pub. 2012/0,131,579 A1 discloses a method for generating, on the fly and on demand, at least one virtual network, adapted for a specific use, on a physical network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights