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
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tondwalkar (US 20240205109 A1) in view of Yang (US 20240284298 A1) and newly cited Clarke (Pub No 20060031469).
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitation.
The examiner relies on newly cited prior art Clarke to teach the amended limitation.
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, 6-8, 13-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondwalkar (US 20240205109 A1) in view of Yang (US 20240284298 A1) and Clarke (Pub No 20060031469)
Regarding claim 1 and 8 and 15,
Tondwalkar teaches A cellular network system comprising:
A server configured to communicate with a radio access network (RAN) that includes cell sites and a core network, the server includes: a processor configured to perform a network data analytics function (NWDAF) comprising: (interpreted as In some examples, the model may be implemented in the network, for example by a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), see para [0130]. Also see RAN para [0104])
a radio access network (RAN) comprising:
a core network comprising a network data analytics function (NWDAF) configured to: (interpreted as In some examples, the model may be implemented in the network, for example by a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), see para [0130])
cell sites configured to deliver performance data to a quality of service (QoS) parameter database; (interpreted as At 500, a network function, such as the network data application function (NWDAF), collects data from one or more network entities. The one or more network entities may for example comprise an AMF, SMF, UPF, and/or UDM/UDR, see para [0175]. Absolute category ratings can be determined based on the actually incurred data (e.g., actually incurred delay for a given packet) for key QoS parameters, see para [0179])
monitor quality of experience (QoE) of a user of cellular services using the key performance indicator (KPI) data;from the QoS parameter database; and (interpreted as For example, in the table above, the QoE model considers latency, packet error rate (PER), Packet loss rate (PLR), Jitter (J) and average data rate as the QoS metrics for the given application and assigns weights (w) to each metric to indicate the importance and impact on the application, see para [0135])
determine, using data analytics, that the QoE is below a predetermined threshold set for the user; (interpreted as In some examples, if the determined QoE value is above a threshold value, the network may determine that sufficient resources are being allocated for the user, see para [0164])
determine, using data analytics, one or more network configuration parameters, from a plurality of network configuration parameters, that are causing the QoE to be below the predetermined threshold for the user; (interpreted as For example, the network may initially take steps to improve the PER and jitter but see no improvement in the QoE value. However, when the network takes steps to improve the latency, a corresponding improvement in QoE value may be achieved, see para [0169])
select, using data analytics, adjustments to the one or more network configuration parameters; adjust the one or more network configuration parameters until the monitored QoE reaches the predetermined threshold. (interpreted as in some examples, the network may continuously or periodically determine the QoE value, take steps to adjust QoS parameters based on the determined value, then determine a subsequent QoE value and take further steps to further adjust the QoS parameters based on the subsequent QoE value, see para [0171])
However Tondwalkar does not teach the performance data being KPI data;
Yang teaches the performance data being KPI data; (interpreted as Core network interface 530 may be configured to communicate with core network 150 to obtain KPI values associated with core network 150. For example, KPI values for core network 150 may be obtained from NWDAF 260 at particular intervals, see para [0058]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the statistical data taught by Tondwalkar with the KPI data taught by Yang with the motivation being to provide statistic data for determine the quality of the communication.
However Tondwalkar in view of Yang does not teach mean opinion score (MOS) data; obtain a profile for a user of the RAN; identify a service level agreement (SLA for the user from the profile;
Determine a mean opinion score (MOS) level for the user based on the SLA for the user
Set a predetermined threshold for the user based on the MOS level;
Clarke teaches mean opinion score (MOS) data; (interpreted as key measurement is the calculated Mean Opinion Score (MOS), see para [0074])
obtain a profile for a user of the RAN; identify a service level agreement (SLA) for the user from the profile; (interpreted as "Service level agreement" (or "SLA") means any oral or written agreement between provider and user. For example, "service level agreement" includes but is not limited to an agreement between vendor and customer, and an agreement between an information technology (IT) department and an end user, see para [0025])
Determine a mean opinion score (MOS) level for the user based on the SLA for the user; Set a predetermined threshold for the user based on the MOS level; (interpreted as threshold values may be derived from a service level agreement [SLA], see para [0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the performance data taught by Tondwalkar in view of Yang with the mean opinion score data taught by Clarke with the motivation being to provide additional parameters for measuring communication quality.
Regarding claim 6 and 13 and 20,
Tondwalkar teaches system of claim 1, wherein the QoE measures performance from a perspective of the user to determine if such performance meets the predetermined threshold. (interpreted as A user quality of experience (QoE) may also be defined, which may be a “perceived quality” experienced by the user. While the QoS may relate to physically measurable quantities, and in some examples may be controlled, the QoE may or may not directly relate to the QoS, and may not be based on physically measurable quantities, see para [0112])
Regarding claim 7 and 14,
Tondwalkar teaches system of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the RAN further comprises: a central unit (CU); and a series of clusters that each comprise a distributed unit (DU) that communicates with the CU and cellular towers over a network, wherein each respective cluster creates and then transmits the KPI data from the DU of the cluster to the core network.
Yang teaches wherein the RAN further comprises: a central unit (CU); and a series of clusters that each comprise a distributed unit (DU) that communicates with the CU and cellular towers over a network, wherein each respective cluster creates and then transmits the KPI data from the DU of the cluster to the core network. (interpreted as Furthermore, in some implementations, DU 330 may report KPI information about its performance to SMO platform 155 and/or to a real-time RIC in CU-CP 312, in MEC device 145, and/or in another location, see para [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Tondwalkar with the KPI data taught by Yang with the motivation being to provide statistic data for determine the quality of the communication for device groups.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondwalkar (US 20240205109 A1) in view of Yang (US 20240284298 A1) and Liu (Pub No 20230354089).
Regarding claim 2 and 9 and 16,
Tondwalkar in view of Yang teaches the system of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the determined network configuration parameters comprise at least one of: QoS parameters and network slice configuration for the user.
Liu teaches wherein the determined network configuration parameters comprise at least one of: QoS parameters and network slice configuration for the user. (interpreted as 5GC may take the saved RAN QoE assistance information into account for the QoS parameters configuration and/or the slice resource allocation of the PDU session, see para [0110])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the QOE parameters taught by Tondwalkar in view of Yang with the QoS parameters and slice configuration as taught by Liu with the motivation being to configure the appropriate parameters for the target QoE.
Regarding claim 3 and 10 and 17,
Tondwalkar teaches system of claim 2, wherein the QoS parameters comprise: maximum bit rate, guaranteed bit rate, latency, jitter, packet loss, and priority such that adjusting the QoS parameters changes the QoE of the user. (interpreted as System factors influencing the QoE may include network related factors (such as packet delay budget (PDB), latency, throughput, packet error rate (PER), packet loss ratio (PLR), average data rate (DR), bandwidth (BW), jitter), content related factors (such as temporal or spatial requirements, colour depth, texture, 2D/3D), media related factors (such as (de-)encoding quality, (re-)buffering time, resolution, sampling rate, frame rate, media synchronization), see para [0115])
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tondwalkar (US 20240205109 A1) in view of Yang (US 20240284298 A1) and Bellamkonda (Pat No 11012872).
Regarding claim 4 and 11 and 18,
Bader teaches system of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the QoE being monitored includes a time and location of use of services of the RAN, and an identified network slice.
Bellamkonda teaches wherein the QoE being monitored includes a mean opinion score (MOS), time and location of use of services of the RAN, and an identified network slice. (interpreted as network slice orchestrator service may also improve the management of network slice metrics (e.g., latency, reliability, throughput, Quality of Service (QoS), Key Performance Indicator (KPI), Quality of Experience (QoE) score, Mean Opinion Score (MOS), etc.), see col 5 line 1-5. Within these genres, the polymorphic algorithms may include context algorithms (e.g., type of cell/sector/site, indoor, dense, urban, etc.), mobility algorithms (e.g., stationary, mobile, speed, direction of end device, etc.), coverage algorithms (e.g., geographic area, cell, sector, a network slice associated with a wireless service, a RAN device, see col 7 line 1-20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the QOE parameters taught by Bader with the monitoring performances as taught by Bellamkonda with the motivation being to determine changes in the QoE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 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, 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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights