DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Domenico et al, application no. 2021/0153112, hereinafter known as Domenico in view of Samdanis et al, application no. 2021/0153077, hereinafter known as Samdanis.
As to claim 1, Domenico discloses a resource allocation device comprising: required resource calculation circuitry to calculate, for each slice, a required occupation value and a required share value (Domenico, [0033], determining for network slices admission based on guaranteed (occupation) and best effort value (shared)) and calculate a total required occupation value and a total required share value on a host pair basis based on the required occupation value and the required share value calculated (Domenico, [0061]-[0062], determining total request of resources for plural of slices including occupation and shared value thereof, figure 2-4, [0012]-[0013] network slices implemented in network for communication routed between devices in the network), the required occupation value being a resource to be occupied and used by each slice, and the required share value being a resource to be shared and used between the slices (Domenico, [0033], determining for network slice admission based on guaranteed (occupation) and best effort value (shared)); and resource allocation circuitry to determine, for each of the host pair, whether or not the total required occupation value and the total required share value are allowed to be allocated to the host pair based on an available resource (Domenico, [[0060]-[0062], determining to admit plural slices requiring occupation and shared resources against available resources and congestion), and allocate the required occupation value and the required share value to each slice in a case where the allocation is possible (Domenico, [0061], figure 8, step 78, figure 9 step 98, allocating the determined resources to slices). Domenico does not disclose however Samdanis dicloses a required occupation value and a required share value based on a predicted value and prediction accuracy of traffic generated in each of one or more slices generated between a host pair that is a pair of a higher device and a lower device (Samdanis, figure 2 and 3, [0038], [0055], using predicated traffic information and confidence degree (prediction accuracy) of predicted traffic to determine resources for a slice requests including guaranteed and best effort resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Domenico to include the limitations of a required occupation value and a required share value based on a predicted value and prediction accuracy of traffic generated in each of one or more slices generated between a host pair that is a pair of a higher device and a lower device as taught by Samdanis. Confidence degree or predication accuracy of traffic enables more precise calculation of network resources for slices where appropriate amount of resources are provisioned with fewer wasted resources.
As to claim 15, Domenico discloses the resource allocation device according to claim 1. Domenico does not disclose however Samdanis dicloses wherein the prediction accuracy is a probability that the generated traffic takes the predicted value, and the required resource calculation circuitry calculates the required occupation value and the required share value of each slice based on the predicted value and the probability (Samdanis, figure 2 and 3, [0038], [0055], using predicated traffic information and confidence degree (prediction accuracy), predicted traffic to determine resources for a slice requests including guaranteed and best effort resources; [0056] the confidence degree is a measure of how probable the traffic prediction is).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Domenico to include the limitations of wherein the prediction accuracy is a probability that the generated traffic takes the predicted value, and the required resource calculation circuitry calculates the required occupation value and the required share value of each slice based on the predicted value and the probability as taught by Samdanis. Confidence degree or predication accuracy of traffic enables more precise calculation of network resources for slices where appropriate amount of resources are provisioned with fewer wasted resources.
As to claim 19, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1 above by in view of Domenico in view of Samdanis.
As to claim 20, the claim is allowed as applied to claim 1 above by in view of Domenico in view of Samdanis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/GAUTAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights