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 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200186411 A1 herein Ravichandran in view of US 20200313985 A1 herein Jaya.
Claim 1, Ravichandran discloses A method of operating a wireless communication network to dynamically manage network slices (0009, slice orchestration), the method comprising:
retrieving network slice Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that indicate traffic patterns and network parameters related to a wireless network slice (0034, obtaining KPIs related to the service and slice, thus traffic patterns and network parameters);
the wireless network slice based on the network slice KPIs (0088, predict fault or performance of the slices);
updating the wireless network slice based on the (0050-0052); and
modifying the wireless network slice based on updated parameters t(0079, slice orchestrator performs various functions with the slices, including slice healing and slice scaling).
Ravichandran may not explicitly disclose predicting an increase in congestion for the wireless network slice based on the network slice KPIs; updating a bandwidth allocation for the wireless network slice based on the predicted increase in congestion; increasing a bandwidth of the wireless network slice based on the updated bandwidth allocation.
Jaya discloses predicting an increase in congestion for the wireless network slice based on the network slice KPIs (0035, determining slice congestion based on KPIs); updating a bandwidth allocation for the wireless network slice based on the predicted increase in congestion (0119, allocation of higher bandwidth); increasing a bandwidth of the wireless network slice based on the updated bandwidth allocation (0119, allocation of higher bandwidth based on congestion prediction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravichandran to include predicting congestion for slices as taught by Jaya so as to greatly help in bringing down the operational expense (OPEX) (0003).
Claim 6, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1 wherein: the network slice KPIs comprise at least one of bandwidth utilization, latency, packet loss, transaction rate, or throughput for the wireless network slice (0189-0195, congestion and other KPIs); and the predicted network conditions comprise one or more of network congestion or a security violation for the wireless network slice (0189-0195, congestion based resolution).
Claim 7, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1 wherein: updating the one or more network slice parameters for the wireless network slice based on the prediction comprises updating one or more of a bandwidth utilization, a Quality-of-Service (QoS), or a security parameter for the wireless network slice (0189-0195); and modifying the wireless network slice based on the one or more updated network slice parameters comprises modifying the wireless network slice using one or more of the updated bandwidth utilization, the updated QoS, or the updated security parameter (00189-0197; 0080).
Claim 8, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising: determining the predicted network conditions persist after modifying the wireless network slice based on the one or more updated network slice parameters (Fig. 5A); instantiating a new wireless network slice based on the wireless network slice (Fig. 5B, instantiation/creation of a slice); and transferring at least a portion of the users from the wireless network slice to the new wireless network slice (0189-0199, mobility factor considered and switching to a WLAN).
Claim 9, Ravichandran discloses Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1 wherein: generating the prediction of the network conditions for the wireless network slice comprises feeding the network slice KPIs into a machine learning model trained to predict the network conditions based on the network slice KPIs and receiving a machine learning output that comprises the prediction (0029, 0050-0055, inputs of parameters to machine learning).
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Ravichandran discloses A Network Slice Control Function (0021; Fig. 2).
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
Claim 16, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 7.
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 8.
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 9.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 8.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran in view of in view of Jaya in view of US 20240095100 A1 herein Ishan.
Claim 2, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1. Ravichandran may not explicitly disclose wherein retrieving the network slice KPIs comprises: transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) that stores analytics data generated by control plane network functions, user plane network functions, and user devices; receiving an API response from the NWDAF that comprise the network slice KPIs.
Ishan discloses wherein retrieving the network slice KPIs comprises: transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) that stores analytics data generated by control plane network functions, user plane network functions, and user devices (0050; 0085); receiving an API response from the NWDAF that comprise the network slice KPIs (0050, information related to parameters stored in NWDAF, i.e. control and user parameters). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravichandran to include NWDAF and other NFs as taught by Ishan so as to adhere to well established standard functions for cellular networks.
Claim 3, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1. Ravichandran may not explicitly disclose wherein retrieving the network slice KPIs comprises: transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) that stores slice data for the wireless network slice; receiving an API response from the NSSF that comprise the network slice KPIs.
Ishan discloses wherein retrieving the network slice KPIs comprises: transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) that stores slice data for the wireless network slice (0050, 0034); receiving an API response from the NSSF that comprise the network slice KPIs (0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravichandran to include NWDAF and other NFs as taught by Ishan so as to adhere to well established standard functions for cellular networks.
Claim 4, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1. Ravichandran may not explicitly disclose wherein retrieving the network slice KPIs comprises: transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a Network Slice Management Function (NSMF) that stores slice management data for the wireless network slice; receiving an API response from the NSMF that comprise the network slice KPIs.
Ishan discloses transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a Network Slice Management Function (NSMF) that stores slice management data for the wireless network slice (0051); receiving an API response from the NSMF that comprise the network slice KPIs (0051-0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravichandran to include NWDAF and other NFs as taught by Ishan so as to adhere to well established standard functions for cellular networks.
Claim 5, Ravichandran discloses The method of claim 1. Ravichandran may not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving an Application Programming Interface (API) call from a Network Exposure Function (NEF) that comprises a third-party requirement for the wireless network slice; and wherein: updating the one or more network slice parameters comprises updating the one or more network slice parameters for the wireless network slice based on the third-party requirement; and further comprising: modifying the wireless network slice based on the one or more updated network slice parameters to meet the third-party requirement.
Ishan discloses receiving an Application Programming Interface (API) call from a Network Exposure Function (NEF) that comprises a third-party requirement for the wireless network slice (0034, 0050); and wherein: updating the one or more network slice parameters comprises updating the one or more network slice parameters for the wireless network slice based on the third-party requirement (0050-0053); and further comprising: modifying the wireless network slice based on the one or more updated network slice parameters to meet the third-party requirement (0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravichandran to include NWDAF and other NFs as taught by Ishan so as to adhere to well established standard functions for cellular networks.
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 12, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240259929 A1 - Network slicing is a feature and architecture in a 5G Standalone (SA) network. Permitting a device to request a network slice that has not already been pre-configured into the device will allow for the utilization of network slices that may have more suitable characteristics based on the particular needs of the device. Systems and methods are provided for on demand 5G slicing that allow a device to interact with the 5G network to request a particular slice based on characteristics, such as speed, latency, and reliability, in order to fulfill the particular needs of the device and obtain the best user experience. In some examples, an Entitlement Configuration Server (ECS) is used as the point of communication between a device and the 5G network.
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights