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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that Srivastava fails to teach at least remotely configuring, from a deployed location of the CMA, the first reserve compute resource ... wherein the deployed location of the CMA is in a relatively close proximity to the first and second physical locations in comparison to a location of a mobile core network supporting the network service to the equipment of the mobile consumer, monitoring, from the deployed location of the CMA, the primary network slice to obtain first monitored performance data ,,, and redirecting, from the deployed location of the CMA, responsive to the first performance issue and without regard to proximity of the mobile core network to either the first or second physical locations, as in amended claim 1. The remaining arguments are directed to the same amendment for claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 has amended the claim and changed the scope of the invention. A new grounds of rejection is applied based on a new reference after an updated search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively close proximity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively close proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner recommends reciting that the CMA is positioned at a closer proximity to the first and second physical locations than the mobile core network. The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (“Yeh”) (US 20220124560 A1) in view of Mishara et al. (“Mishara”) (US 20220360580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yeh teaches:
A self-healing network system, comprising: a processing system of a common multi-access edge computing agent (CMA) including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system [¶0043, Figure 1, INSM 150], facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
selecting a first edge network at a first physical location corresponding to an edge of a mobile communications network [¶0043, 150, selects NANs to serve as backup NANs, considered to include a first backup or primary edge see ¶0052, network corresponding to an edge see Figure 3A], wherein the first edge network comprises a compute resource configured according to a requirement of a network slice to obtain a primary network slice [Figure 5 shows NANs and edge notes as comprising compute resources, and NANs are determined by INSM for implementing a slice ¶0045], and wherein the primary network slice is adapted to provide a network service to a mobile consumer according to a service level requirement [¶0045, network service to be provided via slice, ¶0056 selected based on SLAs];
associating with the network service a second edge network at a second physical location corresponding to the edge of the mobile communications network and separated from the first physical location [¶0043, 150, selects NANs to serve as backup NANs including second NAN at second location different from first, see ¶0052], wherein the second edge network comprises a first reserve compute resource available for configuration [¶0046 “ the one or more backup network slices 204 may reserve computing and network resources in order to support failover of the active network slice 202 in the event of a failure of the active network slice 202. ”]; remotely configuring, from a deployed location of the CMA [¶0043, Figure 1, INSM 15 considered in remote location], the first reserve compute resource according to the requirement of the network slice to obtain a first backup network slice adapted to provide the network service to equipment of the mobile consumer according to the service level requirement [¶0056, choose a target NAN edge network to support the SLA i.e. slice for HO of UE when primary NAN fails]; wherein the deployed location of the CMA is in a relatively close proximity to the first and second physical locations in comparison to a location of a mobile core network supporting the network service to the equipment of the mobile consumer [Figure 3a shows ISMN directly communicating with NAN and not mobile core network between the nodes thus closer in proximity];
monitoring, from the deployed location of the CMA, the primary network slice to obtain first monitored performance data [¶0029 INSM monitors performance metrics of the NANs, ¶0043]; identifying a first performance issue of the primary network slice according to the first monitored performance data [¶0048-49 ];
and redirecting, from the deployed location of the CMA, responsive to the first performance issue and without regard to proximity of the mobile core network to either the first or second physical locations, a providing of the network service from the primary network slice to the first backup network slice [¶0056, choose target NAN for providing service in event of failure of serving edge location implementing the slice, wherein backup NANs used in the event of failure as in ¶0045, and physical location not relevant in decision].
Yeh teaches configuring backup locations for slice implementation, and choosing a backup NAN to serve a UE in case of failure of a serving NAN, but not expressly detecting an issue at a primary slice.
Mishara teaches identifying a first performance issue of the primary network slice according to the first monitored performance data; and redirecting a providing of the network service from the primary network slice to the first backup network slice [¶0038, edge managers monitor slice metrics, detect “issues” i.e. congestion that will happen in future, “then internally adjust the resource provisions for each slice at different edge locations.[…] This solution will be able to detect if any given edge location is not able to meet the slice SLAs because of any faults. The slice will be moved to nearby edge location in that case”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the active slice is monitored to detect an issue which triggers moving the slice to a new location. Yeh teaches activating backup slices at other physical locations of edge networks and it would have been obvious to base this on detecting an issue from monitoring as in Mishara who teaches the network “be able to detect if any given edge location is not able to meet the slice SLAs because of any faults. The slice will be moved to nearby edge location in that case” on ¶0038.
Regarding claim 2, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a performance parameter according to the service level requirement, wherein the monitoring is according to the performance parameter [Yeh ¶0015 determine metrics according to SLAs, monitors in ¶0029 see combination with ¶0038 of Mishara rationale for combination in claim 1],
and wherein the relatively close proximity is determined according to at least one of a physical separation, a line-of-sight distance, and/or a transport delay between the CMA and equipment at the first and second physical locations [Yeh Figure 3a shows relatively close proximity based on separation between ISM and NANs].
Regarding claim 3, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: providing the performance parameter to a local agent proximal to the edge of the mobile communications network, the local agent monitoring the primary network slice according to the performance parameter to obtain the first monitored performance data [Yeh ¶0029, ¶0046, INSM collects metrics corresponding to local agent proximal to edge of network for monitoring].
Regarding claim 4, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 1, wherein responsive to the first performance issue, the operations further comprise: deploying a mobile edge network to a deployed physical location corresponding to the edge of the mobile communications network [Yeh ¶0056, choose target NAN for providing service in event of failure, wherein backup NANs are edge locations and used in the event of failure as in ¶0045, including first backup and second backup slices], wherein the mobile edge network comprises a second reserve compute resource available for configuration [Yeh ¶0046 “ the one or more backup network slices 204 may reserve computing and network resources in order to support failover of the active network slice 202 in the event of a failure of the active network slice 202. ” And these backups may be chosen for use of reserve compute resources in case primary slice fails];
initiating a remote configuration of the second reserve compute resource according to the requirement of the network slice to obtain a second backup network slice adapted to provide the network service to the equipment of the mobile consumer according to the service level requirement [Yeh ¶0043, 150, selects plurality of NANs to serve as backup NANs, considered to include a first or primary edge see ¶0052, and multiple secondary edges see Figure 3A]; monitoring the first backup network slice to obtain second monitored performance data [Yeh ¶0029 INSM monitors performance metrics of the NANs, ¶0043 including serving NAN implementing the slice, which may be any one of the first backup NANs implementing the slice]; identifying a second performance issue of the first backup network slice according to the second monitored performance data [Mishara ¶0038, edge managers monitor slice metrics, detect “issues” i.e. congestion that will happen in future, “then internally adjust the resource provisions for each slice at different edge locations[…] This solution will be able to detect if any given edge location is not able to meet the slice SLAs because of any faults. The slice will be moved to nearby edge location in that case” see rationale for combination as in claim 1]; and redirecting, responsive to the second performance issue, the providing of the network service from the first backup network slice to the second backup network slice [Yeh ¶0056, choose target NAN for providing service in event of failure, wherein backup NANs used in the event of failure as in ¶0045, and physical location not relevant in decision].
Regarding claim 5, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 4, wherein the mobile edge network comprises a mobile equipment suite and a vehicle adapted to transport the mobile equipment suite [Yeh ¶0169 UE is mobile edge suite, and contained on vehicle e.g. drone, comprised in network].
Regarding claim 6, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 5, wherein vehicle comprises a truck, a drone, or a satellite [Yeh ¶0169].
Regarding claim 7, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a message transport delay threshold [Yeh ¶0065, ¶0082, delay bound determined] and identifying the deployed physical location according to the message transport delay threshold, wherein message traffic of the network slice does not exceed the message transport delay threshold [Yeh, ¶0101, INSM performs 1.1.1 ¶0035 monitoring delay parameters and 1.1.2 ¶0042-56, choose NAN based on monitored parameters including delay, wherein steps are taken to keep delay bounded by D thus below threshold D see ¶0079, ¶0082].
Regarding claim 8, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 7, wherein the message traffic comprises control plane message traffic of the mobile communications network, user plane message traffic of the mobile communications network [Yeh ¶0015 user plane functions thus user plane traffic], or a combination of control plane and user plane message traffic of the mobile communications network.
Regarding claim 9, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 1.
Yeh teaches monitoring issues but not predicting them with AI models.
Mishara teaches wherein the operations further comprise: training an artificial intelligence (AI) model according to training data to obtain a trained AI model adapted to identify a network slice performance issue, wherein the training data comprises network slice performance data [¶0038, ML models (AI) to predict slice issues]; and applying the first monitored performance data to the trained AI model to obtain a predicted performance issue, wherein the identifying the first performance issue is based on the predicted performance issue [¶0038 “The analytics engine continuously analyses the parameters of each slice and predicts the usage or congestion that is going to happen at a future time. […] For a network slice, the operator would guarantee a set of KPIs to the consumer. This solution will be able to detect if any given edge location is not able to meet the slice SLAs because of any faults. The slice will be moved to nearby edge location in that case.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the active slice is monitored to predict an issue using AI which triggers moving the slice to a new location. Yeh teaches activating backup slices at other physical locations of edge networks and it would have been obvious to base this on detecting an issue from monitoring as in Mishara who teaches the network “be able to detect if any given edge location is not able to meet the slice SLAs because of any faults. The slice will be moved to nearby edge location in that case” on ¶0038.
Regarding claim 10, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 1, wherein the mobile communications network comprises a mobile cellular communication network [Yeh ¶0015, Figure 3a mobile broadband].
Regarding claim 11, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing network system of claim 10, wherein the mobile cellular communication network comprises a 5G network [Yeh ¶0016-18] , and wherein the relatively close proximity is determined according to a line-of-sight distance between the first and second physical locations [Examiner notes it is unclear how a relatively close proximity is determine and that any two devices will have a line of sight distance such that without further limitations, Yeh Figure 3a shows relatively close proximity based on separation between ISM and NANs, e.g. it is not clear if the relatively close proximity means the device is within a LOS distance or not].
Regarding claim 12, 18, see similar rejection for claim 1 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 13, 19, see similar rejection for claim 4 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 14, 20, see similar rejection for claim 5 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 15, see similar rejection for claim 9 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 16, see similar rejection for claim 10 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 17, Yeh-Mishara teaches:
The self-healing, networking method of claim 12, wherein the first edge network and the second edge network are in communication with the equipment of the mobile consumer according to a multi-connectivity protocol of the mobile communications network [Yeh ¶0055, ¶0062, ¶0065].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478