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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
IDS filed on 3/29/23 is considered.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to software per se, which does not fall into the categories of “process”, “machine”, “manufacture” and “composition of matter”. Referring to claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation, “a computer program product disposed upon a computer readable medium”, which directs the claim to software per se. The computer readable medium is not clearly limited to non-transitory subject matter. The specification [0051]-[0052] discloses a computer readable storage medium.
All dependent claims are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dribinski et al., WO2018/211508A1, hereinafter Dribinski.
Referring to claim 1, Dribinski discloses a method for optimizing non-functional requirements across components (vehicles) of a high availability cluster (cluster of vehicles)(abstract, figure 4), the method comprising:
receiving metadata from each of a plurality of components of a high availability network cluster (figure 4, step 401, page 11 lines 18-25, TMS 210 is collecting/receiving metadata/data from a plurality of vehicles in the same network), the metadata indicative of a value, measured by each of the plurality of components (page 11 line 26-page 12 line 14, collected data includes value indicating measured latency from each vehicle), of one or more non-functional requirements of a service level agreement (SLA) associated with an application (page 3 lines 17-25, page 12 lines 23-28, associated SLA application);
calculating a predicted non-functional requirement using the metadata based on a model (predictive model)(step 402, calculating RRM-related corrective actions with the use of the predictive model), the model being trained to determine the predicted non-functional requirement based on relationships between the metadata of each of the plurality of components (page 13 lines 14-27, uses the obtained RAN -related KPIs to continuously generate (402) a predictive model )(abstract, figure 4, steps 402 and 403, page 11 line 18- page 13 line 27, latency is calculated from obtained RAT-related measurement data); and
determining a potential violation of the SLA based on a comparison of the predicted non-functional requirement and the metadata (figure 4 steps 403 and 404, page 13 line 14- page 14 line 12, SLA violation is determined based on the rule; figure 9, steps 901-903, rule is obtained to compare with obtained value to determine violation).
Referring to claim 2, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying one or more components of the plurality of components contributing to the potential violation (abstract, page 25, line 13-20, obtain/identify and process data informative of RAT-related measurement to reveal (903) violation or near violation of SLA with regard to a leading service).
Referring to claim 3, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising; requesting information associated with the potential violation from the one or more identified components ; receiving the requested information from the one or more identified components; and determining one or more mitigation actions based on the received information (page 3 line 17-page 4 line 9, selecting corrective actions based on the obtained information from the identified vehicle; (page 25, line 13-20, obtain/identify and process data informative of RAT-related measurement to reveal (903) violation or near violation of SLA with regard to a leading service)).
Referring to claim 4, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising initiating the one or more mitigation actions (abstract, provide/initiate corrective actions related to radio connectivity of the vehicle. The corrective actions include modifying RRC measurement report(s) so as to force the cellular network to provide one of: intra-RAT handover, inter-RAT handover; excluding available connectivity with undesired RAT or band; and terminating the radio connectivity with further RAT re-selecting; figure 4, step 404, page 13 line 28-page 14 line 2).
Referring to claim 5, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 4, wherein initiating the one or more mitigation actions comprises sending a request to one or more of the plurality of components to modify an operation of the component to improve fulfillment of the SLA (abstract, The corrective actions include modifying RRC measurement report(s) so as to force the cellular network to provide one of: intra-RAT handover, inter-RAT handover; excluding available connectivity with undesired RAT or band; and terminating the radio connectivity with further RAT re-selecting; page 15 lines 30-31, The matching conditions for a given service can be specified by SLA and/or configured by a user/TSM).
Referring to claim 6, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: determining an expected improvement to the predicted non-functional requirement for each of the one or more mitigation actions using the model; ranking the one or more mitigation actions based on the respective expected improvement to the predicted non-functional requirement; selecting one of the mitigation actions based on the ranking; and initiating the selected mitigation action (page 13 line 28-page 15 line 23, specifically page 15 lines 11-14; It is noted that in a case of several concurrently activated services, RRM- corrective actions can be provided in accordance with a service having the highest priority among the activated services.) .
Referring to claim 7, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata further includes a health status associated with each of the plurality of components (page 25 line 28-page 26 line 2, SLA status to show violation or near violation corresponds to the health status associated with each of the plurality of components).
Referring to claim 8, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more non-functional requirements includes one or more of a latency or bandwidth associated with each of the plurality of components (page 11 line 26-page 12 line 28, latency and SLA requirement).
Referring to claim 9, Dribinski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more components include at least one of a database, a server, an operating system component, a storage area network (SAN), and a storage subsystem (figures 2 and 4, col 11 lines 18-25, vehicles are viewed as the one or more components include at least one of a database, a server, an operating system component, a storage area network (SAN), and a storage subsystem).
Referring to claims 10-20, the claims encompass the same scope of the invention as that of the claims 1-8. Therefore, claims 10-20 are rejected on the same ground as the claims 1-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objection made. Applicant must show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANGCHE A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am to 6:30pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Liang-che Alex Wang
April 17, 2026
/LIANG CHE A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights