DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to amendment for Application 18/020724 filed on 9/8/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 34-54 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Examiner statements in the mailed Non-Final with respect to obvious limitations including common knowledge or well-known in the art are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
4. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 9/8/2025 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 with respect to Claims 34-54 have been considered and found unpersuasive.
Examiner’s Note:
a. applicant states that Examiner did not provide any evidence of the “Examiner’s Note” (Remarks p. 11). Examiner disagrees because the cited section in release 16 is ample evidence to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant provides no evidence to counter Examiner’s supported evidence. Thus, Examiner maintains his position.
Also, applicant arguments are all directed to a design choice rather than the merits of the teachings like the claims are in CN domain instead of RAN domain, the structure is different. This rejection is an obvious rejection that takes into account the level of one with ordinary skill in the art. Merely have a different structure without showing why this is not inventive does not distinguish the underling technology and the skills in the art.
35 USC 101:
b. applicant argues that the amendments clarify that the claimed operations are not performed as a “mental process” (Remarks p. 12). Examiner disagrees because the claims are still abstract. See the updated rejection.
c. applicant states that Examiner’s Note contradicts that the claims are not integrated into a practical application (Remarks p. 12-13).
Examiner disagrees because the 101 analyses are different and distinct from the 103 rejections (obviousness). The Examiner’s note reflects the state of the art and existing technology long before the filed application. As a reminder, patent examiners and practitioners must avoid confusing their evaluation of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with their analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as these are distinct legal requirements. The distinction is critical because an invention can be eligible for patent protection under § 101, but still fail the non-obviousness test under § 103.
d. applicant state that the preamble is amended to include the reporting and that it is the practical application of improving event reporting in a wireless communication network (Remarks p. 13). Examiner disagrees because the claims are still fall under the abstract concept in view of the new and old guidelines.
Stating a controller in the preamble is not enough (claim 34). For example, receiving analytics data and reports from different NF then generates a report based on the reported and received data. The report then is sent to one NF. This is still abstract under both the old guidelines (electric power) and the new guidelines (2019) mental process.
Moreover, the new components controller, NM, wireless communication network, NF and CN are still generic computer and network components that perform generic computer and network functions.
e. applicant state that the claim is not abstract if it recites additional elements (Remarks p. 13). Examiner disagrees because there are no additional elements that satisfy the 101 rejections in the claim. The additional elements merely generic computer components that are disclosed and well known and perform generic computer functions.
35 USC 103:
f. applicant argues that the controller is operating of NM domain and the NF is of CN domain wherein Futkai the controller e.g., eNBs are part of RAN domain and the UE are not part of CN domain (Remarks p. 16). Examiner disagrees because RAN or CN domain are obvious variation of each other.
This argument is rejected because 1) Fukai still teaches that eNB or NM32 to be part of or out the RAN network (Figs. 6 & 9) and 2) RAN domain or CN domain in a cellular wireless communication is merely a design choice that does not affect the underlying technology at all.
The applicant is not showing why would the controller in the RAN domain not work in the CN domain. Instead, the applicant is merely stating an opinion that is not supported with any evidence.
In fact, RAN or CN domain will not require any different NF. This is just known in the art and well-established. Yes, the RAN domain is different than the CN domain but the underlying technology is similar and obvious. One with ordinary skill in the art would easily understands that a controller for CN domain can be used in a RAN domain using only the well-established technology with no or little modification. The specification supports Examiner’s position, “particular NF may belong to a radio access network (RAN) domain or a core network (CN) domain of the cellular wireless communication network…different network domains may comprise at least an RAN domain and a CN domain. In such a case, multiple NF reports may be received from, and multiple event reporting requests may be sent to, NFs provided in the different network domains” [emphasis added]. See ¶0009 & ¶0026.
These paragraphs show that RAN or CN domain requires little or no modification. In fact, it is known in the art that they are interrelated layers of a cellular network where they follow the same framework. So, what works for the RAN domain will also work for CN domain with little or modification. The applicant provides no arguments, evidence or any support to show otherwise.
g. Applicant argues that structure is different than the independent claims (Remarks p. 16-17). Examiner disagrees because the cited art still teaches the claimed limitation.
Rationale above still applies here because this is an obviousness type rejection. Also, applicant fails to show why the teachings in Futkai does not work for the structure as amended. The technology still the same. Merely designing a controller to be outside a domain does not make the claim nonobvious or novel. There are plenty of case law on this subject.
h. applicant argues that Futaki is silent about “NM domain” that is separate from CN domain (Remarks p. 17-18). Examiner disagrees because the cited art still teaches the limitation.
Again, the above response still applies here because the arguments are not real distinction, the arguments are merely obvious variations of the existing technology and teachings of Futaki where on with ordinary skill in the art would realize without additional need to further technical knowledge.
Despite that, Examiner cites to Xiao as a back rejection to move prosecution forward.
Examiner’s Note
The independent claims 34 & 53-54 are well-known in the art because the limitations were disclosed in Release 16 of 3GPP TS 23.502 sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.5 and 6.7.5.4.
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 34-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
A. Independent Claims 34 and 53-54:
Claim 34 recites receiving analytics data and reports from different NF then generates a report based on the reported and received data. The report then is sent to one NF. This is abstract under both the old guidelines (electric power) and the new guidelines (2019) mental process. In this rejection, Examiner details the new guidelines rejection.
The limitation of receiving different type of data including capability or load or capacity data for one NF, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A computer implemented”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a method for controlling NF of wireless communication network” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving analytical data on printed paper. Note that the type of data is irrelevant here because the claim merely receives this data. Also, the data is written in an “or” format which broaden the scope of receiving the data and the method the data is received.
Similarly, the limitations of generating the received data and sending the data to NF is also directed to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components of reporting capability, load or capacity to one NF. For example, “receiving”, “generating” and “sending” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving data on paper, generating the data using any generic process (computer component) and sending this data to any device using any generic process.
Additionally, instant specification clearly states that the process that generates and sends the data is “any” process may perform those steps.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements, controller, NM, wireless communication network, NF and CN. The steps including the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating data based on the received data such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. For example, controller, NM, wireless communication network, NF and CN are generic computer and network components that perform generic network functions. Moreover, the type of data e.g., capability, load and capacity does not change the way the generic process generates the data because it is merely data and the specification discloses that any process may generates this type of data.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform “receiving”, “generating” and “sending” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, controller, NM, wireless communication network, NF and CN are merely generic computer and network components that perform and aid in their generic functions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similar rationales apply to independent claims 53-54 because claim 53 is not substantially different from independent claim 34. Claim 53 recite a processor and memory to perform the method recited in claim 34. The additional element of using a processor and memory embodied with computer-executable instructions for executing on one or more processor and circuits of a device to perform the identified steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
B. Dependent claims:
a. The dependent claims 35-52 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims do not contain any additional element or combination of elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 35-37 recite additional elements of “merging” different data and individualized the reports of data, are to further limiting on generating the data can be performed by human mind or on paper.
Claims 38-40 recite additional elements of “sampling rate”, are to further event reporting which can be performed by human mind or on paper.
Claims 41-47 recite do not recited limitations to further limiting claim 34 with respect to the abstract concept which can be performed by human mind or on paper.
Claims 48-52 & 54 recite additional elements of “different interfaces”, are to further limiting the control component which can be performed by human mind or on paper.
The dependent claims 35-52 are not patent eligible because they do not contain any additional element or combination of elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 34 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Xiao US 2009/0069007 A1.
Regarding Claims 34 & 53, Xiao teaches event reporting controller arranged to operate in a network management (NM) domain of a wireless communication network, the event reporting controller (see Figs. 2-4; RNC 26 and Core Networks and other RAN) comprising: a processor; and a memory operably coupled to the processor and containing instructions executable by the processor, whereby execution of the instructions configures the event reporting controller to:
receive, from at least one network analytics component of the NM domain, a network analytics request indicative of at least one event reporting requirement of the at least one network analytics component (Fig. 2 & ¶0044; Lei teaches RNC 26 [NM domain] where in act 2-1, the RBS 28 provides a measurement capacity report to the RNC 26, for example, during a cell setup. The measurement capacity report apprises the RNC 26 of the capability of the RBS 28 to take various measurements and its capacity to report the measurements that are made. The measurement reporting unit 52 of the RBS 28 sends the measurement capacity report to the RNC 26);
receive multiple network function (NF) reports indicative of at least one of an event reporting capability, a load, and a capacity for at least one NF of a core network (CN) domain of the wireless communication network (Figs. 2-4 & ¶0044-¶0051; Lei teaches RNC 26 [NM domain] where in act 2-1, the RBS 28 provides a measurement capacity report to the RNC 26, for example, during a cell setup. The measurement capacity report apprises the RNC 26 of the capability of the RBS 28 to take various measurements [first/second etc.] and its capacity to report the measurements that are made. The measurement reporting unit 52 of the RBS 28 sends the measurement capacity report to the RNC 26. See Fig. 3 for Core Network. See Figs. 3 for measurement report #1…#k);),
wherein: first and second NF reports are received from each particular NF of the at least one NF(Figs. 2-4 & ¶0044-¶0051; Lei teaches RNC 26 [NM domain] where in act 2-1, the RBS 28 provides a measurement capacity report to the RNC 26, for example, during a cell setup. The measurement capacity report apprises the RNC 26 of the capability of the RBS 28 to take various measurements [first/second etc.] and its capacity to report the measurements that are made. The measurement reporting unit 52 of the RBS 28 sends the measurement capacity report to the RNC 26. See Fig. 3 for Core Network),
and the first NF report is indicative of the event reporting capability for the particular NF(Figs. 2-4 & ¶0044-¶0051; Lei teaches RNC 26 [NM domain] where in act 2-1, the RBS 28 provides a measurement capacity report to the RNC 26, for example, during a cell setup. The measurement capacity report apprises the RNC 26 of the capability of the RBS 28 to take various measurements [first/second etc.] and its capacity to report the measurements that are made. The measurement reporting unit 52 of the RBS 28 sends the measurement capacity report to the RNC 26. See Fig. 3 for Core Network),
and the second NF report is indicative of at least one of the load and the capacity for the particular NF (Figs. 2-4 & ¶0044-¶0051; Lei teaches RNC 26 [NM domain] where in act 2-1, the RBS 28 provides a measurement capacity report to the RNC 26, for example, during a cell setup. The measurement capacity report apprises the RNC 26 of the capability of the RBS 28 to take various measurements [first/second etc.] and its capacity to report the measurements that are made. The measurement reporting unit 52 of the RBS 28 sends the measurement capacity report to the RNC 26. See Fig. 3 for Core Network);
generate at least one event reporting request based on the at least one event reporting requirement and at least one of the event reporting capability, the load, and the capacity for the at least one NF (Figs. 2-4 & ¶0044-¶0051; see measurement report #1…#k);
and send the at least one event reporting request to the at least one NF so as to control event reporting by that at least one NF (Figs. 2-4 & ¶0044-¶0051; see measurement report #1…#k).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 34-37, 40-47 and 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki et al. (hereinafter Futaki) US 2012/0282916 A1 in view of 3GPP TS 23.288 V16 (2019-06) (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding claim 34, Futaki teaches a computer-implemented method performed by an event reporting controller of a network management (NM) domain of a wireless communication network (Figs. 6 & 9 show eNB of NM32. Also see Figs. 1 & 4 & ¶0007; the eNB gives an instruction for the measurement and the reporting to the UE [network function] according to the above policy (Measurement logging and reporting configuration)), the method comprising
receiving, from at least one network analytics component of the NM domain, a network analytics request indicative of at least one event reporting requirement of the at least one network analytics component (Fig. 4, ¶0007, ¶0017 & ¶0119; NM: Network Manager, out of the radio networks, notifies a measurement policy (Measurement policy) to the eNB (Policy indication) and reporting from the UE. Figs. 6 & 9);
receiving multiple NF reports indicative of at least one of an event reporting capability, a load, and a capacity for at least one NF of a core network (CN) domain of the wireless communication network, wherein (¶0050-¶0053; see reporting capability and UE capability report in Fig. 1);
first and second NF reports are received from each particular NF of the at least one NF, and the first NF report is indicative of the event reporting capability for the particular NF, and the second NF report is indicative of at least one of the load and the capacity for the particular NF (¶0050-¶0053; see reporting capability and UE capability report in Fig. 1);
generating at least one event reporting request based on the at least one event reporting requirement and at least one of the event reporting capability, the load, and the capacity for the at least one NF (¶0028, ¶0053, ¶0078-¶0079 & ¶0113-¶0114 & reporting (re-configuration) in Fig. 1);
and sending the at least one event reporting request to the at least one NF so as (¶0028, ¶0053, ¶0078-¶0079 & ¶0113-¶0114 & reporting (re-configuration) in Fig. 1 and measurement, reporting and logging configuration in Figs. 2-4).
Futaki does not expressly teach “…to control event reporting by that at least one NF” This seems to be an intended use. Applicant should respond and clarify that.
NPL teaches “…to control event reporting by that at least one NF” (6.8.3; NWDAF outputs user data congestions analytics for transfer over the user plane, for transfer over the control plane or for both).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of NPL into the system of Futaki in order to collect and retrieve specific type of data and information where on demand provisioning of analytics to consumer take place based on the retrieved data (section 4.1, p. 7).
Regarding claim 35, Futaki teaches the method of claim 34, but does not expressly teach comprising receiving multiple network analytics requests that are collectively indicative of multiple event reporting requirements; and merging the multiple event reporting requirements into an overall event reporting requirement for the at least one NF, wherein the at least one event reporting request sent to the at least one NF is based on the overall event reporting requirement.
NPL teaches comprising receiving multiple network analytics requests that are collectively indicative of multiple event reporting requirements (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.5, 6.7.5.4; see combinations of analytics filers. Also see section 6.7.1; NWDAF provides separate or combined reports that includes UE mobility analytics, communication analytics, expected UE behavioral parameters related network data analytics and abnormal behavior related network data analytics); and merging the multiple event reporting requirements into an overall event reporting requirement for the at least one NF, wherein the at least one event reporting request sent to the at least one NF is based on the overall event reporting requirement (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.5, 6.7.5.4. Also see section 6.7.1; NWDAF provides separate or combined reports [merger] that includes UE mobility analytics, communication analytics, expected UE behavioral parameters related network data analytics and abnormal behavior related network data analytics).
Regarding claim 36, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 35, NPL further teaches wherein one or more of the following applies: at least two of the multiple event reporting requirements are received from different network analytics components (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.5, 6.7.5.4. Also see section 6.7.1; NWDAF provides separate or combined reports that includes UE mobility analytics, communication analytics, expected UE behavioral parameters related network data analytics and abnormal behavior related network data analytics); and merging the multiple event reporting requirements comprises deriving, from respective numerical values included in at least two of the multiple event reporting requirements, an overall numerical value included in the overall reporting requirement.
Regarding claim 37, Futaki teaches the method of claim 34, but does not expressly teach wherein: the NF reports are received from multiple NFs; and the event reporting request for each particular one of the multiple NFs is individualized based on at least one of the event reporting capability, the load and the capacity for that particular NF.
NPL teaches wherein: the NF reports are received from multiple NFs (NPL 6.2.2.1; data collection service is used directly to retrieve behavior data for individual UEs or groups of UEs); and the event reporting request for each particular one of the multiple NFs is individualized based on at least one of the event reporting capability, the load and the capacity for that particular NF (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.5, 6.7.5.4; dedicated information being reported for specific event).
Regarding claim 40, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, but does not expressly teach wherein the at least one event reporting request in indicative of an event filter setting to be applied by the at least one NF, wherein the event filter setting is indicative of one or more of the following: a set of one or more network subscribers to be covered by NF event reporting.
NPL teaches wherein the at least one event reporting request in indicative of an event filter setting to be applied by the at least one NF, wherein the event filter setting is indicative of one or more of the following: a set of one or more network subscribers to be covered by NF event reporting (NPL 7.1-2 and 7.2.2; analytics filter information for subscriber. Also see 6.4.4 p. 23 analytics filter that includes area of interest); a wireless device class or type to be covered by NF event reporting; and a geographic area to be covered by NF event reporting (6.4.4 p. 23 analytics filter that includes area of interest).
Regarding claim 41, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, wherein the NF report from the at least one NF is indicative of an NF event reporting capability in terms of an event filter supported by the at least one NF (¶0006; UE capability report); and generating the at least one event reporting request for the at least one NF comprises processing the network reporting requirement to result in an event filter setting compatible with the event filter supported by the at least one NF (obvious from ¶075-¶0078; generate reporting request to be compatible with other network components).
Regarding claim 42, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 41, NPL further teaches wherein: at least two of the multiple NF reports are received from different NFs, wherein the at least two NF reports are indicative of different event filters supported by the different NFs (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.3-5, 6.7.5.4; different filters are used from different NFs. data collection service is used directly to retrieve behavior data for individual UEs or groups of UEs); and generating the at least one event reporting request comprises processing the network reporting requirements to produce coherent event filter settings compatible with the different events filters supported by the different NFs, such that the different NFs are configured to report events pertaining to a particular communication session despite their different event filters (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.3-5, 6.7.5.4 & Fig. 6.5.4-1; obvious because in step 10 new analytics generated for the target NF load which implies the coherency and compatibility settings).
Regarding claim 43, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising sending an NF capability request to the particular NF in response to receiving the network analytics request, wherein the first NF report is received in response to the NF capability request (Fig. 4 & ¶007, ¶0017 & ¶0119; NM notifies policy indication to eNB to control measurements and reporting from the UE. Also see reporting capability where UE capability report is indicated as in Fig. 1 & ¶0050-¶0053).
Regarding claim 44, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, NPL further teaches wherein one or more of the following applies: the second NF report is received repeatedly after the event reporting request has been sent to the particular NF (NPL 6.5.4, 9-11, p. 28; receive continuous reporting of NF load analytics); and the second NF report is further indicative of current event reporting settings of the particular NF.
Regarding claim 45, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising: receiving, from the at least one network analytics component, analytics information derived from the NF event reporting (Fig. 4, ¶0007, ¶0017 & ¶0119; NM: Network Manager, out of the radio networks, notifies a measurement policy (Measurement policy) to the eNB (Policy indication) and reporting from the UE);
generating a further event reporting request based on at least the analytics information (¶0028, ¶0053, ¶0078-¶0079 & ¶0113-¶0114 & reporting (re-configuration) in Fig. 1);
and sending the further event reporting request to the at least one NF so as to modify event reporting by that at least one NF (¶0028, ¶0053, ¶0078-¶0079 & ¶0113-¶0114 & reporting (re-configuration) in Fig. 1 and measurement, reporting and logging configuration in Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 46, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 45, wherein the analytics information is indicative of at least one of the following: a network anomaly; a number of events reported by a particular NF (¶0063; number of times of measurement information), optionally for a particular key performance indicator, KPI; and a mapping of identifiers used in different network domains.
Regarding claim 47, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 45, wherein the further event reporting request is generated also based on at least one of the event reporting capability, the load and the capacity of the at least one NF (Fig. 4 & ¶007, ¶0017 & ¶0119; NM notifies policy indication to eNB to control measurements and reporting from the UE. Also see reporting capability where UE capability report is indicated as in Fig. 1 & ¶0050-¶0053).
Regarding claim 50, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, comprising determining if the network analytics request from the at least one network analytics component can be fulfilled in view of at least one of the event reporting capability, the load and the capacity of the at least one NF (Fig. 4 & ¶007, ¶0017 & ¶0119; NM notifies policy indication to eNB to control measurements and reporting from the UE. Also see reporting capability where UE capability report is indicated as in Fig. 1 & ¶0050-¶0053); and sending, to the at least network analytics component, a network analytics response message indicative of a result of the determination (Fig. 4 & ¶007, ¶0017 & ¶0119; NM notifies policy indication to eNB to control measurements and reporting from the UE. Also see reporting capability where UE capability report is indicated as in Fig. 1 & ¶0050-¶0053).
Regarding claim 51, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, wherein: the method is performed by an event reporting control component having a first interface towards the at least one network analytics component and a second interface towards the at least one NF (obvious from Fig. 4); and the event reporting control component is co-located with the at least one network analytics component in a network management domain (obvious from Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 52, Futaki teaches the method of claim 34, wherein: a first NF of the at least one NF is part of a radio access network domain of the wireless communication network (¶0012; radio network or radio base station);
But does not expressly teach a second NF of the at least one NF is part of a core network domain of the wireless communication network; and first and second NF reports are received from, and at least one event reporting request is sent to, each of the first and second NFs.
NPL teaches a second NF of the at least one NF is part of a core network domain of the wireless communication network (1. P. 6; 5G Core network); and first and second NF reports are received from, and at least one event reporting request is sent to, each of the first and second NFs (NPL sections 6.1.3, 6.2.2.5, 6.7.5.4; reports are received from different NFs including radio and core networks).
Regarding Claims 53-54. The claims are substantially similar to claim 34, thus the same rationale applies. Additionally, for claim 54, the first/second/third and fourth interfaces are obvious from Fig. 4.
Claims 38-39 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki in view of NPL and further in view of Salvat Lozano et al. (hereinafter Salvat) US 2020/0322367 A1.
Regarding claim 38, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, NPL further teaches wherein: the event reporting requirement is indicative of at least one KPI and an associated precision requirement (NPL 6.9.1 & 6.9.4; target KPI against thresholds provided for specific location as a potential QoS change);
However, Futaki in view of NPL do not expressly teach and the method further comprises calculating the event sampling rate based on the precision requirement, wherein the at least one event reporting request is indicative of at least the calculated event sampling rate and the at least one KPI.
Salvat teaches and the method further comprises calculating the event sampling rate based on the precision requirement, wherein the at least one event reporting request is indicative of at least the calculated event sampling rate and the at least one KPI (¶0006 & ¶0031, ¶0039-¶0040 & ¶0056-¶0057; The report takes in account the KPI for different domains are monitored to detect anomaly that produce different time series with different sample rates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Salvat into the system of Futaki in view of NPL in order to provide to adapt to all the different time scales across domains to be able to develop an effective anomaly detection and troubleshooting system (¶0039). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to tackle this problem by using encoders, in particular auto-encoders. As illustrated by step (2) in FIG. 4, an auto-encoder, for each time series, learns a new representation of the time series with a common dimensionality D across all the time series. Accordingly, a higher-dimensional representation is learned if time series have larger timescales compared to the baseline dimension D. Otherwise, a lower-dimensional representation is learned. Id.
Regarding claim 39, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, but do not expressly teach wherein: the at least one event reporting request is indicative of at least the event sampling rate; and the method further comprises sending, to the at least one network analytics component, a message indicative of the event sampling rate or a parameter derived therefrom.
Salvat teaches wherein: the at least one event reporting request is indicative of at least the event sampling rate (¶0039-¶0040 & ¶0056-¶0057; sample rate of events to detect anomalies); and the method further comprises sending, to the at least one network analytics component, a message indicative of the event sampling rate or a parameter derived therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Salvat into the system of Futaki in view of NPL in order to provide to adapt to all the different time scales across domains to be able to develop an effective anomaly detection and troubleshooting system (¶0039). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to tackle this problem by using encoders, in particular auto-encoders. As illustrated by step (2) in FIG. 4, an auto-encoder, for each time series, learns a new representation of the time series with a common dimensionality D across all the time series. Accordingly, a higher-dimensional representation is learned if time series have larger timescales compared to the baseline dimension D. Otherwise, a lower-dimensional representation is learned. Id.
Regarding claim 48, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 45, but they do not expressly teach wherein: the at least one event reporting request is indicative of at least one of the following: an event sampling rate to be applied by the at least one NF (¶0039-¶0040 & ¶0056-¶0057; sample rate of events to detect anomalies); an event filter setting to be applied by the at least one NF; and one or more key performance indicators, KPIs, for which event reporting is to be performed by the at least one NF. the further event reporting request controls a modification of at least one of the following: an event sampling rate indicated by the at least one event reporting request; one or more KPIs indicated by the at least one event reporting request ;a currently reporting set of NFs; and an event filter setting indicated by the at least one event reporting request.
Salvat teaches wherein: the at least one event reporting request is indicative of at least one of the following: an event sampling rate to be applied by the at least one NF; an event filter setting to be applied by the at least one NF; and one or more key performance indicators, KPIs, for which event reporting is to be performed by the at least one NF. the further event reporting request controls a modification of at least one of the following: an event sampling rate indicated by the at least one event reporting request; one or more KPIs indicated by the at least one event reporting request ;a currently reporting set of NFs; and an event filter setting indicated by the at least one event reporting request.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Salvat into the system of Futaki in view of NPL in order to provide to adapt to all the different time scales across domains to be able to develop an effective anomaly detection and troubleshooting system (¶0039). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to tackle this problem by using encoders, in particular auto-encoders. As illustrated by step (2) in FIG. 4, an auto-encoder, for each time series, learns a new representation of the time series with a common dimensionality D across all the time series. Accordingly, a higher-dimensional representation is learned if time series have larger timescales compared to the baseline dimension D. Otherwise, a lower-dimensional representation is learned. Id.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki in view of NPL and further in view of Balakrishnan US 2014/0040916 A1.
Regarding claim 49, Futaki in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 34, but does not expressly teach wherein: the at least one NF is implemented using cloud computing resources; and an amount of cloud computing resources allocated to each particular one of the NFs is dependent on the event reporting request sent to the particular NF
Balakrishnan teaches wherein: the at least one NF is implemented using cloud computing resources (¶0015 & Fig. 1; cloud computing); and an amount of cloud computing resources allocated to each particular one of the NFs is dependent on the event reporting request sent to the particular NF (¶0025; additional storage capacity may be allocated in advance of a database application overwhelming existing storage capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Balakrishnan into the system of Futaki in view of NPL so that the underlying issues can be addressed in advance. As such, the computing environment (or device(s) in the computing environment) can be configured and/or reconfigured on an ongoing basis to provide reliable and consistent access to the desired resources by the user. In the example given above, additional storage capacity may be allocated in advance of a database application overwhelming existing storage capacity (¶0025).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455