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 .
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.
As claims 1, 14 and 16, “update a sampling rate of the KPI to mitigate use of one or more operational resources of the RIG, the update to the sampling rate determined based on a quantized risk evaluation performed on the performance data of the KPI by adjusting the sampling rate of the KPI” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear if update a sampling rate of the KPI and adjusting the sampling rate of the KPI are same step or different step.
As claims 1, 14 and 16, “the update to the sampling rate determined based on a quantized risk evaluation performed on the performance data of the KPI by adjusting the sampling rate of the KPI” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the risk evaluation determines the new sampling rate or the adjustment itself is part of the evaluation.
As claim 16, “the performance data of the KPI” is vague and indefinite because it‘s unclear if it is a new value or performance data of multiple key performance indicators.
Please clarify, so metes and bounds can be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 6-7, 13-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANANTHANARAYANAN [US 2025/0190257] in view of Pahuja [US 2024/0251345.
As claims 1, 14 and 16, ANANTHANARAYANAN [US 2025/0190257] discloses radio intelligent controller (RIC) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the RIC to: receive performance data of a key performance indicator (KPI) [Par. 0038, 0040, 0049-0050, 0062, 0065 discloses RIC for receiving KPI]; and update a sampling rate of the KPI based at least in part on a determination to mitigate use of one or more operational resources of the RIC [Par. 0057, 0082, 0090, discloses after receiving KPI, varying sampling rate of KPI to mitigate resource]. However, ANANTHANARAYANAN [US 2025/0190257] fails to disclose update a sampling rate of the KPI determined based on a quantized risk evaluation for adjusting the sampling rate of the KPI. In the same field of endeavor, Pahuja [US 2024/0251345] discloses update a sampling rate of the KPI determined based on a quantized risk evaluation for adjusting the sampling rate of the KPI [Fig 5 and Par. 0212, 0240-0252 discloses RIC for updating KPI based on a quantized risk evaluation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for updating a sampling rate of the KPI determined based on a quantized risk evaluation for adjusting the sampling rate of the KPI as disclosed by Pahuja into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claim 3, Pohuja discloses the quantized risk evaluation assesses at least one of [Pohuja discloses Par. 0046].
As claims 6 and 18, ANANTHANARAYANAN discloses the one or more operational resources of the RIC include at least one of processor performance, memory operations, data throughput, a bit rate, data bus bandwidth, energy consumption, or RIC performance [Par. 0082 discloses bandwidth, Par. 0063].
As claim 7, ANANTHANARAYANAN discloses the update to the sampling rate of the KPI is based at least in part on the determination to mitigate use of one or more additional resources that include at least one of transport network performance, a user equipment (UE) performance, or wireless system performance [Par. 0082 discloses latency for transport network performance, Par. 0063, UE performance].
As claim 13, ANANTHANARAYANAN discloses the KPI is associated with at least one of a physical (PHY) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, a radio link control (RLC) layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, or a radio resource control (RRC) layer [Par. 0062-0064 discloses KPI associated at least one of Phy, MAC, RLC, PDCP, RRC].
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Ratman [US 2022/0377616].
As claims 2 and 15, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the RIC to transmit an indication of an updated sampling rate for the KPI to a network equipment (NE) [Par. 0082 discloses new parameter sent to base station].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system configured transmit an indication of an updated sampling rate for the KPI to a network equipment (NE) as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claim 3, ANANTHANARAYANAN fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the quantized risk evaluation assesses at least one of [Ratman Par. 0069, the KPIs used to generate new parameters for predicting violation “evaluation risk”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the quantized risk evaluation assesses at least one of
As claim 4, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja disclose a relatively low variation of the performance data correlates with a decreased sampling rate of the KPI, and wherein a relatively high variation of the performance data correlates with an increased sampling rate of the KPI [Not consideration because at least one of].
As claims 6 and 18, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the one or more operational resources of the RIC include at least one of processor performance, memory operations, data throughput, a bit rate, data bus bandwidth, energy consumption, or RIC performance [Par. 0066 discloses throughput, processor performance “working”, memory operation “working”, RIC performance “working”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the one or more operational resources of the RIC include at least one of processor performance, memory operations, data throughput, a bit rate, data bus bandwidth, energy consumption, or RIC performance as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claim 8, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the one or more operational resources of the RIC include at least processor performance [Par. 0071, 0080, working], and wherein the quantized risk evaluation assesses a combination of the performance data of the KPI and the processor performance of the RIC [Par. 0111-0121 discloses computes a value of violation from the KPIs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the one or more operational resources of the RIC include at least processor performance and wherein the quantized risk evaluation assesses a combination of the performance data of the KPI and the processor performance of the RIC as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claims 9 and 17, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of multiple KPIs, and wherein the quantized risk evaluation assesses the performance data for a combination of KPIs of the multiple KPIs [Par. 0081, 0084, 0111-0121 discloses computes a value of violation from the KPIs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of multiple KPIs, and wherein the quantized risk evaluation assesses the performance data for a combination of KPIs of the multiple KPIs as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claims 11 and 19, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of the KPI from a network equipment (NE) [Par. 0071], and transmit an indication of an updated sampling rate for the KPI to the NE [Par. 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the at least one processor is configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of the KPI from a network equipment (NE), and transmit an indication of an updated sampling rate for the KPI to the NE as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claims 12 and 20, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of the KPI from a user equipment (UE) via a wireless access point [Par. 0071 discloses KPI receives from UE via Base station], and transmit an indication of an updated sampling rate for the KPI to the wireless access point [Par. 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of multiple KPIs, and wherein the quantized risk evaluation assesses the performance data for a combination of KPIs of the multiple KPIs as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
As claim 13, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Ratman [US 2022/0377616] discloses the KPI is associated with at least one of a physical (PHY) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, a radio link control (RLC) layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, or a radio resource control (RRC) layer [Par. 0137 discloses KPI associated at least one of Phy, MAC, RLC, PDCP, RRC].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the KPI is associated with at least one of a physical (PHY) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, a radio link control (RLC) layer, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, or a radio resource control (RRC) layer as disclosed by Ratman into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to optimization the resource of the network.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi [US 2025/0350953].
As claim 5, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to discloses what Kobayashi [US 2025/0350953] discloses a relatively low risk of the performance data correlates with a decreased sampling rate of the KPI, and wherein a relatively high risk of the performance data correlates with an increased sampling rate of the KPI [Par. 0098-0099 discloses increasing/decreasing sampling rate of KPI for indicating quality service].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising a relatively low risk of the performance data correlates with a decreased sampling rate of the KPI, and wherein a relatively high risk of the performance data correlates with an increased sampling rate of the KPI as disclosed by Kobayashi into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to prevent network failure.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gad [US 2024/0430164].
As claim 10, ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja fail to disclose what Gad [US 2024/0430164] discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of the KPI via an open radio access network interface [Fig 1-2, KPI /KPM receives at RIC via O-RAN interface].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the at least one processor is configured to cause the RIC to receive the performance data of the KPI via an open radio access network interface as disclosed by Gad [US 2024/0430164] into the teaching of ANANTHANARAYANAN and Pahuja. The motivation would have been to reduce cost of system.
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 STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414