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 1-10 have been examined.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Instant Application
1. A method for staging a universal customer edge gateway device, the method comprising:
generating, by at least one processor of the universal customer edge gateway device, prior to deployment of the universal customer edge gateway device at a customer location, copies of virtual network function (VNF) operating system (OS) images on the universal customer edge gateway device, the copies comprising a first copy of a first VNF OS image and a second copy of a second VNF OS image;
identifying, by the at least one processor, during a deployment of the universal customer edge gateway device at the customer location, a selection of the first copy from a list of the copies;
copying, by the at least one processor, during the deployment and based on the selection, the first VNF OS image to the universal customer edge gateway device; and
instantiating, by the at least one processor, at the universal customer edge gateway device, the copied first VNF OS image.
Patent 12015525
1. A method for staging a universal customer edge gateway device, the method comprising:
generating, by at least one processor of the universal customer edge gateway device, prior to deployment of the universal customer edge gateway device at a customer location, copies of virtual network function (VNF) operating system (OS) images on the universal customer edge gateway device, the copies comprising a first copy of a first VNF OS image and a second copy of a second VNF OS image;
storing the copies in a secured partition on the universal customer edge gateway device;
identifying, by the at least one processor, during a deployment of the universal customer edge gateway device at the customer location, a selection of the first copy from a list of the copies;
copying, by the at least one processor, during the deployment and based on the selection, the first VNF OS image to the universal customer edge gateway device, wherein copying the first VNF OS image to the universal customer edge gateway device comprises copying the first VNF OS from the secured partition to a hypervisor of the universal customer edge gateway device; and
instantiating, by the at least one processor, at the universal customer edge gateway device, the copied first VNF OS
Patent 12381785
1. A method for staging a universal customer edge gateway device, the method comprising:
generating, prior to shipment of the universal customer edge gateway device to a customer location, copies of virtual network function (VNF) operating system (OS) images on the universal customer edge gateway device, the copies comprising a first copy of a first VNF OS image and a second copy of a second VNF OS image;
identifying, by at least one processor, during a deployment of the universal customer edge gateway device at the customer location, a selection of the first copy from a list of the copies;
copying, by the at least one processor, during the deployment and based on the selection, the first VNF OS image to the universal customer edge gateway device; and
instantiating, by the at least one processor, at the universal customer edge gateway device, the copied first VNF OS image, wherein the copied first VNF OS image is instantiated without instantiating a first VNF associated with the first VNF OS.
Claim 1 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12015525. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12015525 contains every elements of claim 1 in the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from claim 1 of the Patent 12015525.
Claim 1 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12381785. Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12381785 recites generating, prior to shipment of the universal customer edge gateway device to a customer location, copies of virtual network function (VNF) operating system (OS) images on the universal customer edge gateway device, however, claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12381785 does not claim by at least one processor of the universal customer edge gateway device, prior to deployment of the universal customer edge gateway device at a customer location. Nelson teaches generating, by at least one processor of the universal customer edge device, prior to deployment of the universal customer edge device at a customer location, copies of virtual network function (VNF) operating system (OS) images on the universal customer edge device (e.g., OSs that support services running on the universal customer edge device, [35]; services include VN functions [48][49][52]) ([77]; fig. 9, e.g., generating/storing OSs prior to booting/installing the updated OS on the universal customer edge device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Nelson’s teaching because by doing so it would provide a user at startup the choice of booting from the different OS images.
Except for the identified elements above, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12381785 contains every elements of claim 1 in the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from claim 1 of the Patent 12015525.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al, US 2022/0326941 (hereinafter Nelson) in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 1, Nelson teaches the invention substantially as claimed for staging a universal customer edge device [27], the method comprising:
generating, by at least one processor of the universal customer edge device, prior to deployment of the universal customer edge device at a customer location, copies of virtual network function (VNF) operating system (OS) images on the universal customer edge device (e.g., OSs that support services running on the universal customer edge device, [35]; services include VN functions [48][49][52]), the copies comprising a first copy of a first VNF OS image and a second copy of a second VNF OS image ([77]; fig. 9, e.g., generating/storing OSs prior to booting/installing the updated OS on the universal customer edge device);
identifying, by the at least one processor, during a deployment of the universal customer edge device at the customer location, a selection of the first copy from a list of the copies ([77][80][81], e.g., identifying one of the root file system snapshots 902 and 904 as user choice for startup booting/installing);
copying, by the at least one processor, during the deployment and based on the selection, the first VNF OS image to the universal customer edge device ([80][81], e.g., cloning the update OS); and
instantiating, by the at least one processor, at the universal customer edge device, the copied first VNF OS image ([51][82][83][84], e.g., booting/installing with the update OS).
Although Nelson teaches a universal customer edge device, however Nelson does not specifically teach a gateway device. Official Notice is taken for the concept of customer edge device includes a gateway device is known and accepted in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gateway device because by doing so it would allow Nelson’s method to be used on different type of customer edge devices.
As per claim 2, Nelson and Official Notice teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Nelson further teach wherein the copying and the instantiating are performed without downloading the first VNF OS using the Internet ([51][80]-[84], e.g., cloning and instantiating locally from a boot disk on the universal customer edge device at a location lacking Internet connection [4][5], i.e., unassociated with downloading the first VNF OS using Internet).
As per claim 3, Nelson and Official Notice teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Nelson teach requesting, using an application programming interface (API), the list (e.g., Method 800 is executed using control plane API [68]; At 802, a request that include a manifest defining OS is received. Update manager and volume manager obtain and provide the list of OSs (root file system volume snapshot 902 and 904) as choice for user [77][76]), however Nelson does not specifically teach get call. Official Notice is taken for the concept of API get call is known and accepted in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include API get call because by doing so it would improve the interactions between software of method 800 to enable booting of customer edge device.
As per claims 5 and 8, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. (See Nelson, fig. 4 for at least one processor of the universal customer edge gateway device coupled to memory of the universal customer edge gateway device).
As per claims 6 and 9, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
Claims 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson and Official Notice in view of Olcese et al, US 2016/0094664 (hereinafter Olcese).
As per claim 4, Nelson and Official Notice teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 3 above. Although Nelson and Official Notice teach the API get call, however, Nelson and Official Notice does not specifically teach an authorization token. Olcese teaches wherein the API get call comprises an authorization token ([90][93][13], e.g., API GETCALL with authorization token).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Olcese’s teaching with Nelson and Official Notice’s system in order to improve the security of access in Nelson and Official Notice’s system.
As per claims 7 and 10, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 3 and 4 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
