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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1, 3, 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2017/0332421 to Sternberg in view of U.S. Pub. 2022/0353745 to Hua and U.S. Pub. 2022/0201556 to Yang.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sternberg teaches a method of operating a wireless communication network to orchestrate metaverse services for wireless user devices, the method comprising:
receiving and processing a metaverse service request from a wireless user device that indicates a device location and a metaverse type (see for example, sections [0306] to [0314], which teach that when the UE connects, the system receives a request for “augmented reality” slice (which is equivalent to “metaverse”), which includes the slice type and location of the UE and see also sections [0200] to [0206], which teach that the slices are of different types (games, video conference, and are identified differently).
Regarding “selecting a network slice to serve a metaverse session based on the metaverse type indicated by the metaverse service request”, as Sternberg implicitly (not explicitly) teaches “selecting the slice based on the request”, Hua is added.
In an analogous art, Hua teaches a system which provides network slices for requested user services. Section [0015] teaches that the services are for “virtual reality” (which are metaverse services) and section [0020] teaches “slice orchestrator”. See sections [0013] and [0027], which teach that the servers which provide the services are placed at specific different locations. See Figs. 7A and 7B and sections [0047] to [0050] which teach that the UE sends the request for service/slice type, which selects the slice.
Therefore, as both Sternberg and Hua teach providing metaverse services/slices based on UE location and type of service, and Hua explicitly teaches selecting the slice based on the user request, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg with the “selecting” of Hua, as the user requested slice is desired.
Regarding the last two steps of “identifying application servers that provide metaverse services that have sufficient capacity to serve the metaverse session; and
selecting a server of the identified application servers based on a proximity between the device location and a geographic location of the server”, Yang is added.
In an analogous art, Yang teaches a system which provides slices for requested user services. Section [0034] teaches the services are “virtual reality” and “augmented reality”, which are metaverse services. See Fig. 3 and sections [0012] and [0028], which teach that the servers which provide the services are at different locations. See step 620 and sections [0043] to [0047] and [0074] which teach that if the selected UE slice request is not satisfied (due to capacity, proximity) a closer server is selected.
Therefore, as Sternberg/Hua and Yang teach providing metaverse slices based on location and type of service, and Yang explicitly teaches selecting the slice server based on their capacity and location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg/Hua with the server selecting of Yang, as all of these references teach that for low latency types of applications, server location is critical, as the time delay and bandwidth etc. are factors for metaverse slices (as in section [0310] of Sternberg).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, which recite “further comprising: receiving and processing an additional metaverse service request; determining the network slice is at capacity; and instantiating another network slice to serve an additional metaverse session based on the additional metaverse service request”, see sections [0045] of Yang and [0213], [0268], [0297], [0329] and [0342] to [0353] of Sternberg which teach that multiple requests for service/slices may be sent from a UE, and see sections [0074] of Yang and [0305] of Sternberg which teach using different and/or other servers when a slice is “at capacity” (not satisfied in steps 615, 620), therefore, the combination of the teachings of these references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, which recite “wherein selecting the network slice comprises selecting an Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) network slice comprising an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an eMBB Session Management Function (SMF), and an eMBB User Plane Function (UPF)”, see sections [0181] and [0690] of Sternberg and [0036] of Yang which teach an AMF and SMF, and see sections [0097] and [0181] of Yang for user plane and see sections [0048] of Yang and [0023] of Hua, which teach eMBB types of slices. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, which recite “wherein selecting the network slice comprises selecting an Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication (uRLLC) network slice comprising an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), a uRLLC Session Management Function (SMF), and a uRLLC User Plane Function (UPF)”, see sections [0181] and [0690] of Sternberg and [0036] of Yang which teach an AMF and SMF, and see sections [0097] and [0181] of Yang for user plane and see sections [0048] of Yang and [0023] of Hua, which teach (uRLLC) types of slices. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Regarding claim 14, which recites “wherein the network slice comprises an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), a Massive Machine-Type Communications (mMTC) Session Management Function (SMF), and an mMTC User Plane Function (UPF)”, see sections [0181] and [0690] of Sternberg and [0036] of Yang which teach an AMF and SMF, and see sections [0097] and [0181] of Yang for user plane and see sections [0048] of Yang, which teaches mMTC types of slices. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Regarding claim 15, which recites “wherein the metaverse orchestrator comprises a Metaverse Client Server Controller (MCSC)”, see sections [0020], [0029] to [0035] of Hua (slice orchestrator 175), [0031], [0042] [0050]-[0051], [0058]-[0059] of Yang, which also teach a “slice orchestrator device” 405 and [0389] of Sternberg.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2024/0275826 to Bouazizi.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, which recite “further comprising: directing the server to deploy a metaverse application for the metaverse session; exchanging user data for the metaverse session with the wireless user device over the network slice; and exchanging the user data for the metaverse session with the server”, although the servers in Sternberg, Hua and Yang (would implicitly include) but do not explicitly teach “exchanging user data for the metaverse session” per se, Bouazizi is added.
In an analogous art, Bouazizi teaches an augmented reality (metaverse service) provided for a number of interacting user equipment’s (UEs). See Fig. 3 and sections [0068] to [0070], which teach that the UEs exchange their interactive data with other UEs with or through the “augmented reality application server” 182 (ARAS), as recited.
Therefore, as Sternberg/Hua/Yang teach providing metaverse slices from servers, and as Bouazizi explicitly teaches exchanging UE data through a metaverse application server, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg/Hua/Yang with this exchange of data, as augmented reality applications rely on receiving UE inputs and then using the server to provide the “augmented reality” based on the user inputs (which is an exchange of data as recited).
Claims 4, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2023/0146433 to Sharma.
Regarding claim 4, which recites “further comprising: determining the application servers are at capacity; and in response, transferring instructions to activate an additional application server that provides metaverse services”, although Sternberg teaches load reports ([0389]) and Yang teaches obtaining state information ([0029]) and changing the number of servers ([0028], [0040], [0074]), as Yang does not explicitly teach determining server capacity, Sharma is added.
In an analogous art, Sharma teaches a system which reduces the network congestion for slices provided by servers. See for example, section [0050], which teaches that servers report their load capacity and when one server is overloaded another server is activated for the next slice application request.
Therefore, as Sternberg/Hua/Yang teach providing metaverse slices from servers (and changing the number of servers), and as Sharma teaches servers providing capacity reports which activate another server, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg/Hua/Yang with this determination of server capacity and activation of Sharma, as all these references teach teh conventionality that high loads on servers may ruin teh user experience.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, which recite “further comprising: monitoring capacities for the application servers by receiving status reports from each of the application servers”, see section [0050] of Sharma as described above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2004/0205219 to Li.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “further comprising: determining one or more of the application servers are redundant; and in response, transferring instructions to deactivate the one or more redundant application servers”, Li is added.
In an analogous art, Li teaches a system which provides network service via a number of servers. As described in sections [0037], [0044], [0057] and claims 11 and 31, Li teaches that the system deactivates redundant server when user drop off, etc.
Therefore, as Sternberg/Hua/Yang teach providing metaverse slices from servers, and as Li teaches deactivating redundant servers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg/Hua/Yang with the deactivation of Li, as Li teaches that if not needed, redundant servers are deactivated (for efficiency).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2023/0290266 to Jia.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, which recite “further comprising: receiving and processing an additional metaverse service request from an additional wireless user device; determining the additional metaverse service request is associated with the metaverse service request received from the wireless user device; and selecting the network slice to serve an additional metaverse session for the additional wireless user device based on the association”, Jia is added.
In an analogous art, Jia teaches a system which provides the same virtual reality services/slices to a number of users. See Fig. 2 and sections [0033]-[0037].
Therefore, as Sternberg/Hua/Yang teach providing metaverse slices to UEs from servers, and as Jia teaches providing the same slice to an additional user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg/Hua/Yang with the additional request/device of Jia, as Jia teaches the conventionality that virtual reality slices are commonly exchanged between two devices.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of 2022/0210669 to Yu.
Regarding claim 16, which recites “wherein the network slice manager comprises a Communication Service Management Function (CSMF), a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF), and a Network Slice Subnet Management Function (NSSMF)”, Yu is added.
In an analogous art, Yu teaches a system which reduces the network congestion for slices provided by servers. See for example, Fig. 1A and section [0061], which teaches using the three recited network devices for slice management.
Therefore, as Sternberg/Hua/Yang teach providing metaverse slices from servers, and as Yu teaches the conventional core network devices used to manage servers to provide the slice services, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sternberg/Hua/Yang with the network elements of Yu, as all these network elements are desired and conventionally used for slice management purposes.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding independent claim 18, this claim recites the features of independent claim 1 and also includes the steps of dependent claim 2 above. Therefore, see the rejection of claims 1-2 above for the mapping of the recited features to the references.
Regarding claim 19, which recites the features of claim 3 above, see the rejection of claim 3 above, and see sections [0045] of Yang and [0213], [0268], [0297], [0329] and [0342] to [0353] of Sternberg which teach that multiple requests for service/slices may be sent from a UE, and see sections [0074] of Yang and [0305] of Sternberg which teach using different and/or other servers when a slice is “at capacity” (not satisfied in steps 615, 620), therefore, the combination of the teachings of these references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Sharma.
Regarding claim 20, which recites the features of claim 4 above, see the rejection of claim 4 above for the mapping of the recited features to the Sharma reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-21-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments which begin at the bottom of page 7, which state that Yang does not teach the feature of “identifying application servers that provide metaverse services that have sufficient capacity to serve the metaverse session”, the Examiner sets forth the following points. It is first noted that while these sections do not explicitly use the word “capacity” per se, that concept is implicitly included in the cited sections. For example, sections [0028] to [0030] of Yang teach that the slice controller monitors the number of user connections and traffic load on the server which hosts a given slice. Sections [0043] to [0047] of Yang also teach that each slice has a given QoS, or SLA and/or latency, bandwidth requirement. Section [0074] teaches that when the host server is overloaded and cannot meet the requested slice requirements another server is selected. Therefore, although Yang does not use the word “capacity” per se, the determination that a server is overloaded and cannot meet the slice requirements and then subsequently switching servers, is performing the step of “identifying application servers that provide metaverse services that have sufficient capacity to serve the metaverse session”, as recited. Or in other words, when a server is overloaded and cannot provide the request slice requirements, that is determining that the host server does not have “sufficient capacity” and another server is then selected to provide the requested slice that “does have sufficient capacity”, as recited.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments which begin on page 8, which state that Yang does not teach the feature of “selecting a server of the identified application servers based on a proximity between the device location and a geographic location of the server”, as the references teach using “location” which is not “proximity” per se, the Examiner sets forth the following points. As described above, Sternberg teaches in sections [0306] to [0314], that when the UE connects, the system receives a request for a metaverse slice which includes the location of the UE (as UE location is critical for latency). See section [0310] of Sternberg which teaches “The UE's location may also influence slice selection in the sense that the SISF 2024 may desire to assign a slice with computational resources (the server) that are geographically close to the UE 2006 to facilitate, for example, low latency Augmented Reality applications”, which is server selection based on proximity to the UE (without using the word “proximity” per se).
As also described above, Yang teaches in sections [0049] and [0052] that the location of the access device (which is the location of the RAN base station that the UE is connected to, which is indicative of the UE location) and the location of a server is considered for latency consideration, where a server selected is based on its location being closer than another server. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully sets forth that choosing a server based on the location of the server and the location of the UE is performing the feature of “selecting a server based on proximity” (without using the word proximity).
Therefore, similar to the above points, while not using the word “proximity” per se, Sternberg and Yang appear to teach this claimed feature.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646