DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 15-20, 32-36, received 14 November 2024. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 15-20, 32-36 is as follows:
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 December 2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 rejection directed to the claimed feature “wherein the first path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a first data path identifier and a first data rate and wherein the second path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a second data path identifier and a second data rate” has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s response (Remarks pg 8)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-19, 32-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “transmitting to the application a connection admission reply …. Including the first determined path and the second determined path”. However, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature. After careful review of the applicant’s specification, the examiner is unable to find support for transmitting information regarding the first and second identified path to the application server or submitter of the request for admission. The examiner was able to find support for transmitting a request for admission of a connection using the determined path (Spec [0052]) as well as providing a response to the application. However, there is no teaching or suggestion the reply contains “the first determined path and the second determined path” as recited in claim 15.
Claim 15 recites “transmitting to a node within the network a connection request….including one of the first determined path or the second determined path” however the examiner is unable to find support for transmitting a connection request including one of the first or second determined paths. The examiner was able to find support for transmitting a request for admission of a connection using the determined path (Spec [0052 and Fig 4]). In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner understands the aforementioned claim to indicate transmitting to a node within the network a connection request based on the determined first or second path as supported by [0052 and Fig 4] of applicant’s specification.
Claims 16-19 and 32-36 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 15. Therefore claims 16-19 and 32-36 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 15.
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 (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 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 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.
Claim 15-17, 32-34, 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao et al (US 20210105196 A1, hereafter referred to as Dao) in view of Trakinat et al (US 20230291677 A1, hereafter referred to as Trakinat) in view of Shaik et al (US 20200084127 A1, hereafter referred to as Shaik).
Regarding claim 15, Dao teaches method of connection admission into a network comprising:
receiving, from an application server outside the network, a request for admission of a connection between a node associated with the network and the application server (Dao [0296] discloses receiving from a UE, outside the core network, a request to establish a connection [0292-0293]. Additionally, [0269] discloses receiving, from a application function, located outside a core network in a mobile data network [0355], a request to establish a session);
determining (Dao [0064] discloses identifying and configuring network functions in the control plane) a path for the requested connection through user plane functions in the network (Dao [0064] teaches using network functions including a SMP to select user plane functions [0044]);
transmitting to the application a connection admission reply in response to the received including the first determined path and the second determined path (Dao [0385-0386] discloses transmitting a accept response to the UE); and
transmitting to a node within the network a connection request, determined in accordance with the received request, including the determined path (Dao [0374-0377] discloses initiating a session establishment procedure with user plane functions);
establishing a connection between the node and the application server (Dao [Fig 11B] teaches uplink and downlink data transmission).
However, Dao does not explicitly teach [determining] in accordance with an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model of the network (Dao [0064] discloses identifying and configuring based on a OAM [0052]. Further [0316] discloses determining rejection based on applied logic) a first path and a second path for the requested connection, wherein the first path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a first data path identifier and a first response time and a wherein the second pat includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a second data path identifier and a second response time.
Trakinat, in an analogous art, teaches [determining] in accordance with an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model of the network a first path and a second path for the requested connection (Trakinat [0046] discloses an agent or module which determines candidate routing paths for a communication link [0049-0051] using machine learning or artificial intelligence [0050 and 0052] for automatic selection [0052]), wherein the first path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a first data path identifier and a first set of metrics and a wherein the second pat includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a second data path identifier and a second set of metrics (Trakinat [0051] discloses metrics or characteristics upon which the plurality of paths are evaluated [0051], wherein the metrics are used in selection algorithms [0010] and include network delay and load [0002]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dao in view of Trakinat in order to configure the determination of a path for the requested connection through user plane functions in the network, as taught by Dao, to include determining a first path and a second path wherein the first path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a first data path identifier and a first data rate and a wherein the second pat includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a second data path identifier and a second data rate, as taught by Trakinat.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to select or predict the best route to ensure better service quality, reliability and performance (Trakinat [0001-0002]).
However, Dao-Trakinat does not explicitly teach the set of metrics as or including response time.
Shaik, in an analogous art, teaches the set of metrics as or including response time (Shaik [0019] teaches storing performance indictor data associated with a plurality of network function devices in a telecommunications system) such that Shaik teaches wherein the first path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a first data path identifier and a first response time and wherein the second path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a second data path identifier and a second response time (Shaik [0019] teaches storing performance indictor data associated with a plurality of network function devices in a telecommunications system, wherein the performance indicators include a latency performance indicator regarding roundtrip time).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dao-Trakinat in view of Shaik in order to configure the first and second path, as taught by Dao-Trakinat, to include, in the set of parameters, a [respective] response time, as taught by Shaik.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce the burden of an operator to include resources to manage a plurality of network function devices thereby decreasing the complexity of the system and operating and maintaining the system and distributed storage requirements permitting optimization of operating parameters of the system (Shaik [0010 and 0036]).
Regarding claim 16, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the node associated with the network is connected to the network through a radio access network (Dao [0046 and 0056] discloses an application server (and application function ([0355])) is connected to a data network [0352], outside the core network, which connects to the user plane function part of the core network [0056], wherein the data network is part of a mobile edge network [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the network is a core network associated with a mobile network (Dao [0041] discloses a core network associated with a mobile network [0042, 0039 and 0063]).
Regarding claim 32, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the determining is performed using knowledge of various network statuses and load levels (Dao [0092] discloses rejection causes, used in establishing a session [0348, 0351], include network status (out of service area) and insufficient resources (load level). Likewise, Trakinat [0002] discloses considering load).
Regarding claim 33, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based Model uses one or more network routing patterns (Dao [0324] discloses consulting the NRF to determine a network function based on previously selected network functions to serve the session. Likewise, Trakinat [0050] discloses user inputs, network inputs and past performance as inputs).
Regarding claim 34, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the determining identifies which pathway through the network is most likely to be able to support the connection request (Dao [0324] discloses consulting the NRF or received information to determine the network functions configured to support the session request. Likewise, Trakinat [0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 36, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the determining comprises a preemptive rejection of the request for admission of a connection (Dao [0316, 0322] discloses rejecting a session creation request without transmitting a creation request to a SMF [0324-0325]).
Claim 18-19, 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao et al (US 20210105196 A1, hereafter referred to as Dao) in view of Trakinat et al (US 20230291677 A1, hereafter referred to as Trakinat) in view of Shaik et al (US 20200084127 A1, hereafter referred to as Shai) as applied above regarding claim 15, further in view of Neuman et al (US 20180115520 A1, hereafter referred to as Neuman).
Regarding claim 18, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
However, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik does not explicitly teach the method wherein transmitting the connection request to the node within the network is performed after transmitting the connection admission reply.
Neuman, in an analogous art, teaches the method wherein transmitting the connection request to the node within the network is performed after transmitting the connection admission reply (Neuman [0212-0213] discloses transmitting the connection request to the server after transmitting the connection response [0208-0209]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dao-Trakinat-Shaik in view of Neuman in order to configure the transmitting the connection request, as taught by Dao-Trakinat-Shaik, be performed after transmitting the connection admission reply, as taught by Neuman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable faster response and start up time, reducing the delay of round-trip times (Neuman [0204, 0206]).
Regarding claim 19, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method further comprising:
receiving from the node within the network a reply to the connection request (Dao [0348, 0378] teaches receiving a response to the connection request).
However, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: further wherein the step of transmitting a connection admission reply is performed before receiving the reply to the connection request from the node within the network.
Neuman, in an analogous art, teaches the method further comprising:
receiving from the node within the network a reply to the connection request (Neuman [Fig 30-1766]), and further wherein the step of transmitting a connection admission reply is performed before receiving the reply to the admission request from the node within the network (Neuman [0212-0213] discloses transmitting the connection request to the server after transmitting the connection response [0208-0209]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dao-Trakinat-Shaik in view of Neuman in order to configure the reply to the connection request from the node within the network, as taught by Dao-Trakinat-Shaik, be performed before receiving the reply to the admission request from the node within the network, as taught by Neuman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable faster response and start up time, reducing the delay of round-trip times (Neuman [0204, 0206]).
Regarding claim 35, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the limitations of claim 15, as rejected above.
Additionally, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik teaches the method wherein the Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model uses predictions about network behavior (Trakinat [0050] discloses using predictions about network behavior, based on past performance data).
However, Dao-Trakinat-Shaik does not explicitly teach teaches the method wherein the Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model uses predictions about network behavior to allow faster response to the request for admission.
Neuman, in an analogous art, teaches the method wherein the Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model uses predictions about network behavior to allow faster response to the request for admission (Neuman [0209] discloses using predictions to respond to the connection request, providing faster startup times and reducing round trip times [0204, 0206]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dao-Trakinat-Shaik in view of Neuman in order to configure the AI or machine learning using predictions about network behavior, as taught by Dao-Trakinat-Shaik, use predictions to allow faster response to the request for admission, as taught by Neuman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable faster response and start up time, reducing the delay of round-trip times (Neuman [0204, 0206]).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama et al (WO 2019076681 A1, hereafter referred to as Sama) in view of Kotaru et al (US 20220377597 A1, hereafter referred to as Kotaru).
Regarding claim 20, Sama teaches a method of responding to a connection admission request from an application server, the method comprising:
determining, without transmitting a request for admission to a node within the network, that a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network (Sama [Pg 18-19] teaches determining, based on a policy, a session establishment request pertaining to a particular service or slice is not allowed to be accessed by a UE without forwarding the request to the core network);
transmitting to the application server a rejection of the connection admission request (Sama [Page 18-19] discloses sending a rejection to the UE’s request without forwarding the request to the core network).
However, Sama does not explicitly teach determining, in accordance with an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model of a network, that a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network based on a quality of the network (As set forth above Sama teaches determining a connection associated with a request cannot be supported by the network, however, Sama does not teach the specifics as based on a quality of the network).
Kotaru, in an analogous art, teaches determining, in accordance with an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model of the network (Kotaru [0066] discloses using machine learning or AI to make predictions pertaining to network admission) that a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network based on a quality of the network (Kotaru [0002, 0110] teaches denying a connection associated with an admission request based on determining the SLA associated with the request cannot be achieved by the network, based on the network state and quality [0064], such that the network is unable to guarantee the requested metrics associated with the service request [0048]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sama in view of Kotaru in order to configure the determining without transmitting a request for admission to a node within the network, as taught by Sama, to be in accordance with machine learning or AI based on the quality of a network, as taught by Kotaru.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to improve the technical operations of the physical infrastructure achieving reliable and performant connectivity between application and service by admitting applications based on predictions meeting performance objectives (Kotaru [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitation “wherein the first path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a first data path identifier and a first response time and wherein the second path includes a set of parameters comprising at least one of a second data path identifier and a second response time” recited claim(s) 15-18, 32-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 November 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection regarding claim 15, applicant argues:
“The language "transmitting to the application a connection admission reply in response to the received request, including the first determined path and the second determined path," and "transmitting to a node within the network a connection request, determined in accordance with the received request, including one of the first determined path or the second determined path," is supported by the specification at least at paragraph [0050]-[0051]” Remarks pg 9
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites transmitting or sending to the application server (the requesting entity) a reply including the determined first and second paths. However, as set forth above in the 35 USC grounds of rejection, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature. The applicant (remarks pg 9) points to paragraphs [0050-0051] for support of said feature. However, as set forth above in the 35 USC 112 rejection [0050] provides support for providing a reply to the requesting entity or application server, however, the specifics of said reply are not stated such that there is no teaching or suggestion the reply “including the first determined path and the second determined path” as recited.
Furthermore, the claim recites transmitting to a node [within the network] a connection request including the determined first or second path. However, as set forth above in the 35 USC grounds of rejection, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature. The applicant (remarks pg 9) points to paragraphs [0050-0051] for support of said feature. However, as set forth above in the 35 USC 112 rejection there is no teaching or suggestion in [0050-0051] or any other part of the specification for transmitting a connection request with information “including one of a first determined path or the second determined path”.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection regarding claim 15, applicant argues:
“As such, the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is traversed and should be withdrawn.” Remarks pg 10
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has failed to show support for including first and second path information in a reply to the requesting entity/application server and for including first or second path information in a connection admission request sent to a network entity within the network as recited by claim 15.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, applicant argues:
“Neuman does not describe the same steps as recited in claim 18. Claim 18 recites "transmitting the connection request to the node within the network is performed after transmitting the connection admission reply," and claim 19 recites "wherein the step of transmitting the connection admission reply is performed before receiving a reply to the connection request from the node within the network.”” Remarks pg 12-13
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. Based upon broadest reasonable interpretation claims 18 and 19 are directed to transmitting a connection request to the node within the network after a connection reply is sent (claim 18) such that the step of performing the admission reply occurs before receiving a reply to a an admission request from within the network (claim 19). Neuman, teaches claim 18 such that Neuman teaches transmitting a connection request to the node within the network after a connection reply is sent Neuman [0212-0213] discloses transmitting the connection request to the server after transmitting the connection response [0208-0209]). Moreover, Neuman teaches claim 19 such that the step of performing the admission reply occurs before receiving a reply to a an admission request from within the network (Neuman [Fig 30-1761] teaches performing the admission reply before receiving a reply to a connection request within the network [Fig 30-1766]).
Regarding claim 35, applicant argues:
“Moreover, Neuman does not describe the same method as recited in claim 35. Claim 35 recites, "wherein the Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model uses predictions about network behavior to allow faster response to the request for admission." Neuman at paragraphs [0204], [0206], and [0209] does not describe Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning using predictions about network behavior to allow faster response to the request for admission. In fact, Neuman only describes using predictions about of acceptance of a connection, not predictions about a response to a request for admission, as recited in claim 35.” Remarks pg 13
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. Based upon broadest reasonable interpretation claim 35 indicates use of AI/ML to predict network behavior allowing faster response to connection requests. Neuman [0209] teaches predicatively accepting connections which allows faster startup times [0204] associated with a client connection request [0208]).
Regarding claims 18-19, applicant argues:
“For these additional reasons, claims 18-19 and 35 are also not obvious over Dao in view of Trakinat and further in view of Neuman.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 18-19 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn.” Remarks pg 13
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above responsive to applicant’s previous arguments pertaining to claim 20.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues:
“Sama is distinguishable from claim 20, as Sama makes no determination that "a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network," as recited by claim 20. Instead, Sama is directed to rejection of a connection request, not a "connection admission request." In Sama, the user equipment/drone is not inquiring whether a connection to the network is possible, but rather is requesting a connection to the network. This is very different than claim 20, which is directed to a "connection admission request," not a "connection request.”” Remarks pg 14
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites, in part, “determining, without transmitting a request for admission to a node within the network, that a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network” which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of applicant’s specification, the examiner understands to mean “determining, without transmitting a request to a network node, a connection associated with received request to establish a connection (applicant’s specification [0050]) cannot be provided by the network”. Sama teaches determining, without transmitting a request to a network node, a connection associated with received request to establish a connection cannot be provided by the network (Sama [Pg 18-19] teaches determining, based on a policy, a session establishment request pertaining to a particular service or slice is not allowed to be accessed by a UE without forwarding the request to the core network).
Moreover, regarding the argument Sama is directed to “a connection request….very different than…a ‘connection admission request’”, the specifics differentiating a connection request as recited by Sama and a request to establish a connection, as recited by applicant (spec [0050]) are not recited such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of connection admission request is a request for connection as taught by Sama.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues:
“This deficiency in Sama is not cured by Kotaru. Kotaru describes a slice controller that makes predictions of channel state information for user equipment executing applications that make connectivity requests for admission to particular identified slices (abstract). The element of "determining, in accordance with an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model of a network, without transmitting a request for admission to a node within the network, that a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network," as recited in claim 20, is also not described by Kotaru. This is because Kotaru generates predictions about the channel state information and those predictions about channel state information are utilized by the slice controller to determine admission to the radio access network responsive to an admission request from the application/user equipment (par. [0065]-[0066] and Fig. 11). This is very different than determining "that a connection . .. cannot be supported by the network based on a quality of the network""without transmitting a request for admission to a node within the network," as recited by claim 20. Claim 20 does not use Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning for determining channel state, but rather uses them to predict availability of a network connection at a certain quality. This prediction and determination occurs prior to the time that a channel state is being determined.” Remarks pg 20
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites, “determining, in accordance with an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning based model of a network, without transmitting a request for admission to a node within the network, that a connection associated with the connection admission request cannot be supported by the network based on a quality of the network” which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation in view of applicant’s specification, indicates determining, using AI/ML, without transmitting a request to a network node, a connection associated with received request to establish a connection cannot be provided by the network based on network conditions.
Sama, as set forth above responsive to applicant’s previous arguments, teaches determining, without transmitting a request to a network node, a connection associated with received request to establish a connection cannot be provided by the network (Sama [Pg 18-19] teaches determining, based on a policy, a session establishment request pertaining to a particular service or slice is not allowed to be accessed by a UE without forwarding the request to the core network). However, Sama does not explicitly teach the use of AI/ML to make the determination, wherein the determination is based on the network conditions. Kotaru, in an analogous art, teaches the use of AI/ML to make the determination (Kotaru [0066] discloses using machine learning or AI to make predictions pertaining to network admission) a connection associated with a received request cannon be provided by the network based on network conditions (Kotaru [0002, 0110] teaches denying a connection associated with an admission request based on determining the SLA associated with the request cannot be achieved by the network, based on the network state and quality [0064], such that the network is unable to guarantee the requested metrics associated with the service request [0048]).
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. use of AI/ML them to predict availability of a network connection at a certain quality. This prediction and determination occurs prior to the time that a channel state is being determined) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues:
“As such, Sama and Kotaru, either alone or in any known combination, fail to teach or suggest each of the elements of claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is not obvious over Sama in view of Kotaru.
Therefore, the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C§ 103 should be withdrawn.” Remarks pg 15
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above responsive to applicant’s previous arguments pertaining to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al (US 20200389843 A1);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446