Response to Amendment
This office action in response to a communication made on April 23, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC §112(a) rejection of claims 1-20 is hereby withdrawn because of the claim amendments and the applicant’s remarks (see pp. 13-14). However, a new grounds of rejection is provided below as necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (PGPUB 2023/0140659, hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Scharf et al (PGPUB 2015/0081907, hereinafter “Scharf”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a device, performance requirements for a service to be provided by a service area to a user device (¶251, wherein the performance requirements are received in the form of a performance assurance policy of a network slice);
receiving, by the device, radio access network (RAN) factors that influence a RAN in providing the service, core factors that influence a core network in providing the service, and transport factors that influence a transport network in providing the service (¶161, wherein the performance requirement is used to determine RAN, core network (CN), and transport network (TN) factors);
determining, by the device and based on the RAN factors, whether a RAN capability of the RAN satisfies the performance requirements (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein the application slice subnet can be analyzed and determine network management behavior the subnets need to have to meet the network slice subnet performance requirements, wherein a network slice subnet includes a RAN);
determining, by the device and based on the core factors, whether a core capability of the core network satisfies the performance requirements (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein the application slice subnet can be analyzed and determine network management behavior the subnets need to have to meet the network slice subnet performance requirements, wherein a network slice subnet includes a core network (CN));
determining, by the device and based on the transport factors, whether a transport capability of the transport network satisfies the performance requirements (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein the application slice subnet can be analyzed and determine network management behavior the subnets need to have to meet the network slice subnet performance requirements, wherein a network slice subnet includes a transport network (TN));
determining, by the device, RAN configuration settings based on the RAN capability, core configuration settings based on the core capability, and transport configuration settings based on the transport capability (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein based upon analysis of the subnets, the NSSMF determines management behavior for each of the network slice subnets).
generating, by the device, a RAN self-organizing network (SON) for the service area based on the RAN configuration settings (¶268 and ¶273, wherein the configuration settings (management behavior) are optimized using a subnet’s SON function device, the subnet’s include RAN, CN, and TN subnets);
generating, by the device, a core SON for the service area based on the core configuration settings (¶268 and ¶273, wherein the configuration settings (management behavior) are optimized using a subnet’s SON function device, the subnet’s include RAN, CN, and TN subnets);
generating, by the device, a transport SON for the service area based on the transport configuration settings (¶268 and ¶273, wherein the configuration settings (management behavior) are optimized using a subnet’s SON function device, the subnet’s include RAN, CN, and TN subnets); and
creating, by the device, a network slice based service area for the service area based on the RAN SON, the core SON, and the transport SON (¶273, wherein a network slice is configured using the performance assurance policy through the combination of network slice subnets, the network slice subnets can be RAN, core, and transport subnets, see also ¶268, wherein SON optimization can be used to help determine network slice subnet analysis) wherein the network slice based service area satisfies the performance requirements for the service (¶¶259-260, wherein the network slice is going to execute the network slice according to the quality requirements).
Zhang does not explicitly indicate determining, by the device, that one or more of the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors, fail to satisfy the performance requirements; or determining, by the device and using best efforts configuration settings, RAN configuration settings based on the RAN capability, core configuration settings based on the core capability, and transport configuration settings based on the transport capability, wherein the best efforts configuration settings partially satisfy the performance requirements for the one or more of the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors, or creating a network slice that only partially meets the requirements
Scharf teaches a deployment system in a virtualized environment that includes a plurality of configuration/requirements that should be satisfied to determine if a deployment matches the network function that is going to be deployed (¶25 ¶¶28-29). Scharf further suggests that in the situation where there is no full match for all the different requirements the system can identify a partial match that meets some of the requirements but not all, then implement the deployment using the partial match to provide a possible degraded performance (¶33, ¶36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Scharf’s suggestion that a partial requirement match can be used when a only some, but not all of the requirements of a deployment can be met. This suggestion can incorporate into Zhang’s system, the result would be in a situation where the SON deployment only partially meets the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors (i.e. requirements), the system can select those partial met deployment and provide the best configuration that is not a full match.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Zhang teaches a device, comprising: one or more processors configured to:
receive performance requirements for a service to be provided by a service area to a user device (¶251, wherein the performance requirements are received in the form of a performance assurance policy of a network slice);
receive radio access network (RAN) factors that influence a RAN in providing the service, core factors that influence a core network in providing the service, and transport factors that influence a transport network in providing the service (¶161, wherein the performance requirement is used to determine RAN, core network (CN), and transport network (TN) factors);
determine, based on the RAN factors, whether a RAN capability of the RAN satisfies the performance requirements (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein the application slice subnet can be analyzed and determine network management behavior the subnets need to have to meet the network slice subnet performance requirements, wherein a network slice subnet includes a RAN);
determine, based on the core factors, whether a core capability of the core network satisfies the performance requirements;
determine, based on the transport factors, whether a transport capability of the transport network satisfies the performance requirements (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein the application slice subnet can be analyzed and determine network management behavior the subnets need to have to meet the network slice subnet performance requirements, wherein a network slice subnet includes a core network (CN));
determine RAN configuration settings based on the RAN capability, core configuration settings based on the core capability, and transport configuration settings based on the transport capability (¶¶255-260, 269-273, wherein the application slice subnet can be analyzed and determine network management behavior the subnets need to have to meet the network slice subnet performance requirements, wherein a network slice subnet includes RAN, CN, and TNs);
generate a RAN self-organizing network (SON) for the service area based on the RAN configuration settings (¶268 and ¶273, wherein the configuration settings (management behavior) are optimized using a subnet’s SON function device, the subnet’s include RAN, CN, and TN subnets);
generate a core SON for the service area based on the core configuration settings (¶268 and ¶273, wherein the configuration settings (management behavior) are optimized using a subnet’s SON function device, the subnet’s include RAN, CN, and TN subnets);
generate a transport SON for the service area based on the transport configuration settings (¶268 and ¶273, wherein the configuration settings (management behavior) are optimized using a subnet’s SON function device, the subnet’s include RAN, CN, and TN subnets);
create a network slice based service area for the service area based on the RAN SON, the core SON, and the transport SON (¶273, wherein a network slice is configured using the performance assurance policy through the combination of network slice subnets, the network slice subnets can be RAN, core, and transport subnets, see also ¶268, wherein SON optimization can be used to help determine network slice subnet analysis); wherein the network slice based service area satisfies the performance requirements for the service (¶¶259-260, wherein the network slice is going to execute the network slice according to the quality requirements).
receive a request for the service from the user device (¶141, wherein the system receives a request from a user); and
provide the service to the user device via the network slice based service area (¶¶138-139, wherein the network slices provide one or more services within the network).
Zhang does not explicitly indicate determining, by the device, that one or more of the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors, fail to satisfy the performance requirements; or determining, by the device and using best efforts configuration settings, RAN configuration settings based on the RAN capability, core configuration settings based on the core capability, and transport configuration settings based on the transport capability, wherein the best efforts configuration settings partially satisfy the performance requirements for the one or more of the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors.
wherein the network slice based service area satisfies the performance requirements for the service (¶¶259-260, wherein the network slice is going to execute the network slice according to the quality requirements).
Zhang does not explicitly indicate determining, by the device, that one or more of the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors, fail to satisfy the performance requirements; or determining, by the device and using best efforts configuration settings, RAN configuration settings based on the RAN capability, core configuration settings based on the core capability, and transport configuration settings based on the transport capability, wherein the best efforts configuration settings partially satisfy the performance requirements for the one or more of the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors, or creating a network slice that only partially meets the requirements
Scharf teaches a deployment system in a virtualized environment that includes a plurality of configuration/requirements that should be satisfied to determine if a deployment matches the network function that is going to be deployed (¶25 ¶¶28-29). Scharf further suggests that in the situation where there is no full match for all the different requirements the system can identify a partial match that meets some of the requirements but not all, then implement the deployment using the partial match to provide a possible degraded performance (¶33, ¶36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Scharf’s suggestion that a partial requirement match can be used when a only some, but not all of the requirements of a deployment can be met. This suggestion can incorporate into Zhang’s system, the result would be in a situation where the SON deployment only partially meets the RAN factors, the core factors, or the transport factors (i.e. requirements), the system can select those partial met deployment and provide the best configuration that is not a full match.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request for the service from the user device (¶141, wherein the system receives a request from a user); and providing the service to the user device via the network slice based service area provided by the generated RAN SON, the generated core SON, and the generated transport SON (¶¶138-139, wherein the network slices provide one or more services within the network).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performance requirements include requirements associated with one or more of: an electrical interface, a form factor, a data rate, an optical connection, a fiber type, a wavelength, a distance, a modulation, or a signal-to-noise ratio (see table 1, p. 13, wherein a throughput parameter is a data rate).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performance requirements are associated with a service level agreement for the service (¶162, wherein an SLA can be part of the requirements).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performance requirements are associated with traffic characteristics of the service (¶160 and table 1, wherein the request is specific to the end-to-end service being provided by the network slice, the requirements can be specific to traffic characteristics that will be configured in the network slice, see also ¶¶166-168).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the RAN factors include factors associated with one or more of: an electrical interface, a form factor, a data rate, an optical connection, a fiber type, a wavelength, a distance, a modulation, a signal-to-noise ratio, equipment loading, spectrum availability, spectrum loading, or a quality of service identifier (see table 1, p. 13, wherein a throughput parameter is a data rate, see also ¶161, wherein the requirements can be specific to the RAN domain).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the core factors include factors associated with one or more of: an electrical interface, a form factor, a data rate, an optical connection, a fiber type, a wavelength, a distance, a modulation, a signal-to-noise ratio, equipment loading, spectrum availability, spectrum loading, a user plane function location, a multi-access edge computing device location, an aggregate maximum bit rate, a quality of service identifier, or a guaranteed or non-guaranteed bit rate (see table 1, p. 13, wherein a throughput parameter is a data rate, see also ¶161, wherein the requirements can be specific to the CN domain).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the transport factors include factors associated with one or more of: an electrical interface, a form factor, a data rate, an optical connection, a fiber type, a wavelength, a distance, a modulation, equipment loading, spectrum availability, or spectrum loading (see table 1, p. 13, wherein a throughput parameter is a data rate, see also ¶161, wherein the requirements can be specific to the TN domain).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Zhang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the RAN factors that influence the RAN in providing the service, the core factors that influence the core network in providing the service, and the transport factors that influence the transport network in providing the service, are configured to: receive the RAN factors from the RAN; receive the core factors from the core network; and receive the transport factors from the transport network (¶261, wherein analysis is performed at the subnet level, wherein the subnets can be associated with CN, RAN, and TN domains, ¶266, wherein the analysis results are used to determine the policy for each subnet).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the RAN SON, the core SON, and the transport SON are associated with one or more network functions (¶268, wherein the SON function devices can be used to optimize each network slice subnet, ¶259, wherein network functions are helping to operate the subnet slices).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Zhang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to determine, based on the RAN factors, whether the RAN capability of the RAN satisfies the performance requirements, are configured to: determine whether one or more of the RAN factors satisfy the performance requirements; and determine the RAN capability based on determining whether one or more of the RAN factors satisfy the performance requirements (¶272, wherein the network slice subnet is assigned management behavior based upon the results of the analysis of the requirements for the particular network slice subnet (including RAN, CN, and TN domains), see also ¶161, wherein the requirements include resource allocations to achieve the latency or other performance parameters).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Zhang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to determine, based on the core factors, whether the core capability of the core network satisfies the performance requirements, are configured to: determine whether one or more of the core factors satisfy the performance requirements; and determine the core capability based on determining whether one or more of the core factors satisfy the performance requirements (¶272, wherein the network slice subnet is assigned management behavior based upon the results of the analysis of the requirements for the particular network slice subnet (including RAN, CN, and TN domains), see also ¶161, wherein the requirements include resource allocations to achieve the latency or other performance parameters).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Zhang teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to determine, based on the transport factors, whether the transport capability of the transport network satisfies the performance requirements, are configured to: determine whether one or more of the transport factors satisfy the performance requirements; and determine the transport capability based on determining whether one or more of the transport factors satisfy the performance requirements(¶272, wherein the network slice subnet is assigned management behavior based upon the results of the analysis of the requirements for the particular network slice subnet (including RAN, CN, and TN domains), see also ¶161, wherein the requirements include resource allocations to achieve the latency or other performance parameters).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the performance requirements are associated with a service level agreement for the service (¶162, wherein an SLA can be part of the requirements) and with traffic characteristics of the service (¶160 and table 1, wherein the request is specific to the end-to-end service being provided by the network slice, the requirements can be specific to traffic characteristics that will be configured in the network slice, see also ¶¶166-168).
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 KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights