DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 12/29/2023, wherein:
Claim 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-3, 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, 11, and 17, the claims recite “provide a dynamic service model that defines one or more hook points within the instructions for operating a network function and one or more parameters that can be accessed by a codelet at the hook point; dynamically receive a codelet from an analysis node; verify that the codelet complies with the dynamic service model; and execute the codelet at one of the hook points” (recited in claim 1; similar scope was recited in claim 11, and 17). The above limitations are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. The steps described in the limitations can be interpreted as a mental process comprising conceptualizing of software for dynamic service model with hookpoint; receiving codelets or pseudocode from other; making judgement/evaluation regarding to piece of specific code; and mentally simulating the code to obtain output. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any further step that cannot be performed mentally. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer component such as memory and processor. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 12, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claim are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). The claims further limit the abstract idea further with an abstract idea and are therefore not being interpreted to be additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea, because these limitations are viewed to be part of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foukas et al. (“Taking 5G RAN Analytics and Control to a New Level”, Published 07/10/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Foukas discloses a computing system comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions for operating a network function; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions for operating the network function, wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 2, section 2.1, and section 3 disclose Janus architecture on RIC and Janus devices which are logical component of physical device comprising processor and memory components) are configured to:
provide a dynamic service model (Section “1. Introduction” - “To address the limitations that arise from the static nature of the existing RIC service models, we propose Janus, a system that provides dynamic monitoring and control vRAN functionality”) that defines one or more hook points within the instructions for operating a network function and one or more parameters that can be accessed by a codelet at the hook point (Section 3.1 – “Janus device: A Janus device is any vRAN component (i.e., a vCUor vDU)that allows execution of custom code. Janus introduces Janus call points, or hooks, at selected places in vRANfunctions, at which custom eBPF code can be invoked. The invocation is inlined with the vRAN code and gives the eBPF code read-only access to a selected internal vRAN context, which includes various 3GPP-defined data structures and events (see Table 1 and §3.2). The type of data that is passed to a codelet depends on the layer the hook is introduced to and could include packets of users, signaling messages etc. A custom code can be loaded and unloaded dynamically from a Janus device, at runtime, without affecting the device’s performance”);
dynamically receive a codelet from an analysis node (Section 3.1 – “Janus controller and SDK: The Janus controller is responsible for controlling the Janus devices and codeletsets. Developers upload their codeletsets to the controller, with load/unload instructions for one or more Janus devices”);
verify that the codelet complies with the dynamic service model (Section 3.1 – Janus controller and SDK – “Before the controller allows a codelet set to be loaded, it verifies the safety and termination of each codelet. The controller further instruments the verified bytecode with control code that pre-empts it if its runtime exceeds some threshold (seeSection5.1)”, Section 5.1); and
execute the codelet at one of the hook points (section 3.1 – “Janus codelets: A Janus codelet is a custom code that can be deployed at a single hook at runtime”).
Regarding claim 2, Foukas discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein to execute the codelet at one of the hook points, the one or more processors are configured to: export the one or more parameters to the analysis node via a telemetry protobuf; and receive control information for the network function from the analysis node (Section 3.1 – “The (patched) codelets are JIT compiled and pushed to Janus devices over the network, along with metadata files required for enabling the flexible output of data and input of control commands using protobuf schemas”, Section 3.2 on page 6 – “Flexible schemas: Janus codelets can send arbitrary telemetry data to the data collector using flexible output schemas through a special type of ringbuffer map (lines 8-14). This map is linked to a codelet-specific protobuf schema defined by the codelet developer (see Section 5.2). This example uses a custom protobuf schema called output_msg (line 21), with a single counter field (line 34). The data is exported to the data collector through a helper function (line 35)”, which indicated the use of telemetry protobuf for exporting data and receiving control information – i.e. codelets).
Regarding claim 3, Foukas discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the analysis node is an edge data processor local to the computing system (Fig. 2 and section 3 disclose Janus controller in RIC – which is an edge device - for collecting data and executing codelets).
Regarding claim 11, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the computer system of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Foukas discloses a communications network (abstract discloses O-RAN which is a communication network) comprising: an analysis node configured to execute an analysis application based on information from a virtual network function (Fig. 2, section 2.1, and section 3 disclose Janus architecture on RIC and Janus devices); and the virtual network function configured to:
provide a dynamic service model (Section “1 Introduction” - “To address the limitations that arise from the static nature of the existing RIC service models, we propose Janus, a system that provides dynamic monitoring and control vRAN functionality”) that defines one or more hook points within instructions for operating the virtual network function and one or more parameters that can be accessed by a codelet at the hook point (Section 3.1 – “Janus device: A Janus device is any vRAN component (i.e., a vCUor vDU)that allows execution of custom code. Janus introduces Janus call points, or hooks, at selected places in vRANfunctions, at which custom eBPF code can be invoked. The invocation is inline with the vRAN code and gives the eBPF code read-only access to a selected internal vRAN context, which includes various 3GPP-defined data structures and events (see Table 1 and §3.2). The type of data that is passed to a codelet depends on the layer the hook is introduced to and could include packets of users, signaling messages etc. A custom code can be loaded and unloaded dynamically from a Janus device, at runtime, without affecting the device’s performance”);
dynamically receive a codelet from an analysis node (Section 3.1 – “Janus controller and SDK: The Janus controller is responsible for controlling the Janus devices and codeletsets. Developers upload their codeletsets to the controller, with load/unload instructions for one or more Janus devices”);
verify that the codelet complies with the dynamic service model (Section 3.1 – Janus controller and SDK – “Before the controller allows a codeletset to be loaded, it verifies the safety and termination of each codelet. The controller further instruments the verified bytecode with control code that pre-empts it if its runtime exceeds some threshold (seeSection5.1)”, Section 5.1); and
execute the codelet at one of the hook points (section 3.1 – “Janus codelets: A Janus codelet is a custom code that can be deployed at a single hook at runtime”).
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.
Claim 5, 7, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foukas et al. (“Taking 5G RAN Analytics and Control to a New Level”, Published 07/10/2023) in view of Dehghan et al. (US 20250023619 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Foukas discloses the computing system of claim 3, however, silent on further details of claim 5.
Dehghan discloses wherein the edge data processor is configured to communicate with a near-real-time radio intelligent controller (RIC) via an E2 interface (Fig. 1 and ¶0025 disclose interface E2 for communication between RIC and E2 node – i.e. edge node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Foukas to incorporate known interface from Dehghan because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known interface for communication between edge node and RIC.
Regarding claim 7, Foukas discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to communicate with a near-real-time RIC to receive the dynamic service model (Fig. 2 disclose communication between RIC and Janus device such as vCU/vDU for dynamic service model). However, the reference is silent on details about E2 interface.
Dehghan discloses wherein the edge data processor is configured to communicate with a near-real-time radio intelligent controller (RIC) via an E2 interface (Fig. 1 and ¶0025 disclose interface E2 for communication between RIC and E2 node – i.e. edge node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Foukas to incorporate known interface from Dehghan because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known interface for communication between edge node and RIC.
Regarding claim 14, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the computer system of claim 7, therefore, being addressed as in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Foukas discloses the communications network of claim 17, however, silent on details of claim 18.
Dehghan discloses wherein the analysis node is an edge data processor local to a computing system hosting the virtual network function and configured to communicate with a near-real-time radio intelligent controller (RIC) via an E2 interface (Fig. 1 and ¶0025 disclose interface E2 for communication between RIC and E2 node – i.e. edge node which is a data processor local to a computing system hosting the virtual network function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Foukas to incorporate known interface from Dehghan because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known interface for communication between edge node and RIC.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643