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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear as to what the term “long short-term memory” recited in line 6 is referring to. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the long short-term memory is referring to the memory of the apparatus itself, memory implemented by the neural network, or some external memory, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Additionally, the claim recites updating the long short-term memory in line 9, but fails to recite what aspect of the memory is being updated, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Additionally, it is unclear as to what the term “the quality of service metric” recited in line 8 is referring to. Is it referring to the predicted quality of service metric for the network slice recited in line 5?
Furthermore, it is unclear as to what the term “target service level specification” recited in line 8 is referring to. To be more specific, the term does not specify whether it is a threshold/requirement of some kind (to which the quality of service metric is compared to), as well as what it comprises (signal quality, bit rate, etc.), rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-10, the claims are rejected for depending on claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12-16, the claims are rejected for depending on claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear as to what device or component is performing the recited method. To be more specific, it is unclear as to what device or component is performing the recited method steps of “determining…a quality of service metric”, “outputting a slicing decision…”, and “updating the long short-term memory…”, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Additionally, it is unclear as to what the term “long short-term memory” recited in line 3 is referring to. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the long short-term memory is referring to the memory of the apparatus itself, memory implemented by the neural network, or some external memory, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Additionally, the claim recites updating the long short-term memory in line 7, but fails to recite what aspect of the memory is being updated, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Also, it is unclear as to what the term “the quality of service metric” recited in lines 5-6 is referring to. Is it referring to the predicted quality of service metric for the network slice recited in lines 2-3?
Furthermore, it is unclear as to what the term “target service level specification” recited in line 6 is referring to. To be more specific, the term does not specify whether it is a threshold/requirement of some kind (to which the quality of service metric is compared to), as well as what it comprises (signal quality, bit rate, etc.), rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 18-20, the claims are rejected for depending on claim 17 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s independent claims recite executing an actor-critic neural network to predict a quality of service metric for a network slice based on a long short-term memory representative of one or more prior slicing decisions, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Melodia et al. (US 2022/0167236 A1) discloses a deep reinforcement learning agent comprising an actor neural network and a value neural network for use in controlling slicing of resources.
Mody et al. (US 2023/0088930 A1) discloses network slicing decisions and deep convolutional neural networks/deep reinforcement learning.
Mueller et al. (US 2023/0121268 A1) discloses network slice selection function and inputting performance metrics, performance requirements, connectivity metrics, connectivity requirements, etc. into a trained neural network to determine adjustments to infrastructure and connectivity predicted to satisfy performance requirements and connectivity requirements.
Guduru et al. (US 2024/0334318 A1) discloses a neural network trained on network slice performance data for selecting a network slice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights