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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed on 12-04-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2017/0272960) in view of Yang et al (US 20210014737) and further in view of Marquezan et al (US 2021/0058302). Hereinafter referred to as Li, Yang and Marquezan.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20. Li method comprising: receiving, by a device, a request to establish a communication session or data flow for a user equipment (UE) device connected to a Radio Access Network (RAN) (see at least figure 1); obtaining, by the device, key performance indicators (KPI) information relating to one or more KPIs for a plurality of paths in a transport network used by the RAN to connect to a core network (see at least figures 1, 3. Moreover, it is inherent that network devices, in an autonomous network like LTE, are aware of channels/paths statuses); determining, by the device, a KPI requirement for the communication session or data flow to be established (see at least figures 3, and 6-7).
Li discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of selecting, by the device, a path in the transport network based on the obtained KPI information and the determined KPI requirement; and establishing, by the device, the communication session or data flow in the transport network using the selected path. However, Yang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches selecting, by the device, a path in the transport network based on the obtained KPI information and the determined KPI requirement; and establishing, by the device, the communication session or data flow in the transport network using the selected path (see at least paragraph [0053]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Yang, as indicated, into the communication method of Li for the purpose of guaranteeing quality of service.
Li in view of Yang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of that the obtaining step is in response to the request and prior to selecting a particular path in a transport network. However, Marquezan, from the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining requesting KPI information prior to selecting a particular path in a transport network (see at least [0004], [0012], [0032]-[0044] and [0141]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Marquezan, as indicated, into the communication method of Li in view of Yang for the purpose of improving communication and network resources utilization.
Regarding claims 2 and 13. Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses a method further comprising: obtaining core KPI information relating to the one or more KPIs for a plurality of paths in the core network (see at least paragraphs [0050]-[0053]); and selecting a path in the core network based on the obtained core KPI information and the determined KPI requirement (see at least paragraphs [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16. Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses a method wherein selecting the path in the transport network includes: selecting a Centralized Unit User Plane (CU-UP) function in the transport network for the communication session or data flow (Yang: see at least Figures 1-3).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses a method wherein obtaining KPI information relating to the one or more KPIs for the plurality of paths in the transport network includes: obtaining KPI information for one or more switches in the transport network; and wherein selecting the path in the transport network based on the obtained KPI information and the determined KPI requirement includes: selecting at least one of the one or more switches (Yang: see at least paragraphs [0028] and [0050].
Regarding claim 8. Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses a method wherein the device includes a RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) (Yang: see at least paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 9. Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses a method wherein the one or more KPIs include: a latency parameter, a packet loss parameter, a jitter parameter, or a throughput parameter (Yang: see at least paragraph [0050]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yang in view of Marquezan and further in view of Taft et al (US 2020/0328953). Hereinafter referred to as Taft.
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of obtaining the core KPI information relating to the one or more KPIs for the plurality of paths in the core network includes: receiving the core KPI information from a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) in the core network. However, Taft, from the same field of endeavor, teaches of obtaining the core KPI information relating to the one or more KPIs for the plurality of paths in the core network includes: receiving the core KPI information from a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) in the core network (see at least paragraph [0075]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Taft, as indicated, into the communication method of Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan for the purpose of improving network performance and management.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yang in view of Marquezan and further in view of Xin et al (US 2021/0195683). Hereinafter referred to as Xin.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses receiving another request to establish another communication session or data flow for another UE device connected to the RAN; determining a KPI requirement for the other communication session or data flow to be established; determining that the KPI requirement for the other communication session cannot be satisfied by the transport network based on the obtained KPI information (Yang: see at least paragraph [0053]) (Li: see at least figures 1, 3, and 6-7).
Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of rejecting the other request to establish the other communication session or data flow for the other UE device, in response to determining that the KPI requirement for the other communication session cannot be satisfied by the transport network. However, Xin, from the same field of endeavor, teaches rejecting a UE session based on session requirement (see at least paragraph [0156). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Xin, as indicated, into the communication method of Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan for the purpose of guaranteeing quality of service.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yang in view of Marquezan and further in view of Gundavelli et al (US 2023/0047867). Hereinafter referred to as Gandavelli.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of obtaining KPI information for a midhaul link in the transport network. However, Gundavelli, from the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining KPI information for a midhaul link in the transport network (see at least paragraph [0160]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Gundavelli, as indicated, into the communication method of Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan for the purpose of keeping up with network complexity and improving UE experience.
Claims 10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yang in view of Marquezan and further in view of Choudhary et al (US 2025/0080446). Hereinafter referred to as Choudhary.
Regarding claims 10, 18-19. Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining a testing frequency/paths for the one or more KPIs based on KPI requirements associated with UE devices connected to the RAN; and obtaining the KPI information relating to the one or more KPIs for the plurality of paths in the transport network based on the determined testing frequency/paths. However, Choudhary, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a testing frequency/paths for the one or more KPIs based on KPI requirements associated with UE devices connected to the RAN; and obtaining the KPI information relating to the one or more KPIs for the plurality of paths in the transport network based on the determined testing frequency/paths (see at least abstract and paragraphs [006], [0028], and [0054]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Choudhary, as indicated, into the communication method of Li in view of Yang and further in view of Marquezan for the purpose of path alternatives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476