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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/11/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the various units in claim 1 (note: the claims 2-4 provide sufficient structure for the service units that the respective service units described in each dependent claim do not invoke a 112(f) interpretation in those dependent claims).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine/manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “detecting whether a fault occurred” “determining whether to replace the functionality . . .”is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
• No, the various “units” claimed are additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). They could also be considered additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the various “units” claimed are additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). They could also be considered additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claims 2-4, the recited computing limitations are additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). They could also be considered additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 5, the detecting a failure is as noted above considered an abstract idea. The remainder of the claim adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional elements are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “detecting whether a fault occurred” “determining whether to replace the functionality . . .”is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
• No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
• No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13 are 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.
As to claims 3 and 4, it is unclear to which input packet “the input packet” refers because there are multiple input packets recited in claim 2.
As to claim 13, “N” is undefined.
Claim limitations “fault detection unit” and “fault adjustment unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. These units are not sufficiently described in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson (US 20080046552 A1).
As to claim 6, Watson teaches a method for preventing faults in a multi-access edge computing (MEC) system with fault-tolerant functionality, which enhances the performance of applications and services by deploying computing resources at the edge of the network, the method comprising:
detecting whether a failure has occurred in a primary service application (see Fig. 3 and associated text disclosing a service monitoring mechanism that detects a fault); and
determining whether to substitute the function of the primary service application with either a first replicated service application or a second replicated service application upon detection of a fault in the primary service application (see fig. 3 and fig. 4 and associated text, disclosing performing a failover to a secondary service in the event of a failure/threshold crossing; also see paragraphs 0011 and 0031 describing fig. 3 and disclosing that a service can be failed over either to a remote or local service; also see paragraph 0033, disclosing failing over to local service; and paragraph 0006, disclosing that any number of services can be switched between).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20080046552 A1) in view of Ravdev (US 20230130553 A1).
As to claim 1, Watson teaches a multi-access edge computing (MEC) system (see fig.1 and paragraphs 0018 disclosing an edge environment) with fault-tolerant functionality, which enhances the performance of applications and services by deploying computing resources at the edge of the network (see fig.1 and paragraphs 0018 disclosing an edge environment), comprising:
a first MEC service unit comprising a main service application, which acts as the primary provider of a service (see fig. 3, disclosing a Primary service);
a second MEC service unit comprising a first replicated service application, which acts as a backup in case of a fault in the main service application (see Fig. 3, disclosing a secondary failover service);
a third MEC service unit comprising a second replicated service application, which acts as a backup in case of a fault in the main service application (see Fig. 3, disclosing a tertiary local failover service; also see paragraphs 0026, disclosing there can be any number of services that can be switched between); and
a fault-tolerant system comprising:
a fault detection unit for detecting whether a fault has occurred in the main service application (see Fig. 3 and associated text disclosing a service monitoring mechanism that detects a fault); and
a fault adjustment unit for determining whether to replace the functionality of the main service application with one of the first or second replicated service applications in the event of a failure in the main service application (see fig. 3 and fig. 4 and associated text, disclosing performing a failover to a secondary service in the event of a failure/threshold crossing; also see paragraphs 0011 and 0031 describing fig. 3 and disclosing that a service can be failed over either to a remote or local service; also see paragraph 0033, disclosing failing over to local service; and paragraph 0006, disclosing that any number of services can be switched between).
Watson does not explicity teach the MEC service units.
However, Radev teaches hardware servers that can host OS’s and applications (see paragraphs 0024-0026).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Watson with the teachings of Radev because it enables high availability of applications (see abstract and paragraph 0038).
As to claim 2, Watson teaches claim 1 as detailed above.
Watson further teaches the first MEC service unit further comprises:
[a service] to which input packets are provided (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0021,
disclosing interacting with a service over the internet; the examiner interprets this involves the use of packets;
Radev further teaches a first MEC server, a first hypervisor connected to the first MEC server; and a first operating system (OS) connected to the first hypervisor; wherein the main service application is connected to the first operating system (OS) (see paragraphs 0024-0026, disclosing virtualization including server hardware, hypervisor, and OS running applications).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Watson with the teachings of Radev because it enables high availability of applications (see abstract and paragraph 0038).
As to claim 3, Watson teaches claim 2 as detailed above.
Watson further teaches the second MEC service unit further comprises:
[a service] to which the input packet is provided (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0021,
disclosing interacting with a service over the internet; the examiner interprets this involves the use of packets;
Radev further teaches a second MEC server; a second hypervisor connected to the second MEC server; and a second operating system (OS) connected to the second hypervisor; wherein the first replicated service application is connected to the second operating system (OS) (see paragraphs 0024-0026, disclosing virtualization including server hardware, hypervisor, and OS running applications).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Watson with the teachings of Radev because it enables high availability of applications (see abstract and paragraph 0038).
As to claim 4, Watson teaches claim 3 as detailed above.
Watson further teaches the third MEC service unit further comprises:
[a service] to which the input packet is provided (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0021,
disclosing interacting with a service over the internet; the examiner interprets this involves the use of packets;
Radev further teaches a third MEC server; a third hypervisor connected to the third MEC server; and a third operating system (OS) connected to the third hypervisor; wherein the second replicated service application is connected to the third operating system (OS) (see paragraphs 0024-0026, disclosing virtualization including server hardware, hypervisor, and OS running applications).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Watson with the teachings of Radev because it enables high availability of applications (see abstract and paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson and Radev in view of Zhou (US 20250119342 A1).
As to claim 5, the references above teach claim 4 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach an input packet mirrored from the input packets, an MEC server packet 1 provided through the first MEC server, an MEC server packet 2 provided through the second MEC server, and an MEC server packet 3 provided through the third MEC server, and detects whether a failure has occurred to notify the fault adjustment unit.
However, Zhou teaches receiving mirrored packets from each physical device on a network as part of a test to determine if a network fault exists (see paragraphs 0070-0073).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the references above with the methods of Zhou because it improves network link fault diagnosis efficiency (see Summary).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. US 11755438 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights