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 ground 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023172292 herein D’Oro in view of US 20220217046 A1 herein Sartori.
Claim 1, D’Oro discloses A method comprising:
determining, by a RAN intelligent controller (RIC) of a telecommunications network (see figure 14, "Near-real-time RIC"), a RAN function change (see page 31, lines 21-23, "dApps receive, [...] Enrichment Information (EI) from the near-RT RIC,...");
sending the RAN function change to a disaggregated application that is separate from the RIC, the disaggregated application including a small agent of an application of the RIC (see page 35, line 26, "...dApps can receive EI from the near-RT RIC via the E2 interface.", and see page 31, lines 18-20, "...dApps are custom and distributed applications that complement xApps/rApps by implementing RAN intelligence at the CUs/DUs for real-time use cases outside the timescales of the current RICs."); and
causing by the small agent of the application of the RIC, the RAN function change to alter a behavior of one or more of a centralized unit (CU) or a distributed unit (DU) (see page 35, lines 27-30, "...xApps process data from one or more gNBs, and send EI to the dApps, which use it to make decisions on control operations. For example, a DU can receive traffic forecasts from the near-RT RIC, and use this information to control scheduling, Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS), and beamforming.", and see page 31, lines 18-20, "...dApps, [...], complement xApps/rApps by implementing RAN intelligence at the CUs/DUs for real-time use cases,...").
D’Oro may not explicitly disclose wherein the small agent is a Performance Management (PM) Controller configured to manage a generation of counters by the one or more of the centralized unit (CU) or the distributed unit (DU).
Sartori discloses wherein the small agent is a Performance Management (PM) Controller configured to manage a generation of counters by the one or more of the centralized unit (CU) or the distributed unit (DU) (0075, 0078, CPU in devices with performance management counters that collect RAN data provided by CU or DU). 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 D’Oro to include counters as taught by Sartori so as to allow for RAN optimization (0104).
Claim 2, D’Oro discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the RIC is a non-real time RIC and the RAN function change is a delayed tolerant function change (see pg. 31, lines 21-23, "dApps receive, [...], Enrichment Information (EI) from the near-RT RIC, and use it to execute real-time inference and control of lower-layer functionalities.").
Claim 4, D’Oro discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the small agent is a controller of a non-real time RIC application, and the controller is included within the one or more of the CU or the DU (Fig. 14).
Claim 5, D’Oro discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the RIC as a near-real time RIC and the RAN function change is a time-sensitive function change (pg. 35, line 30, "...dApps are dispatched via the 01 interface.", wherein the Non-RT RIC influences dApps through O1 by providing policies, AI/ML models, and slicing configurations, ensuring optimized operation of dApps at the CU/DU, see figures 13 and 14. fig. 13, "Timescale and Apps" and "Control objective").
Claim 7, D’Oro discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the small agent is an agent of a near-real time RIC application, and the agent is included within the one or more of the CU or the DU (Fig. 14).
Claim 8, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 9, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 12, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 7.
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 16, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, 17 and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Oro in view of Sartori in view of WO 2023028310 A1 herein Fessard.
Claim 3, D’Oro discloses The method of claim 2. D’Oro may not explicitly disclose wherein the small agent is a controller of a non-real time RIC application, and the controller is separate from the one or more of the CU or the DU.
Fessard discloses wherein the small agent is a controller of a non-real time RIC application, and the controller is separate from the one or more of the CU or the DU ( [0019], "...functionalities of the INSM 150 can be implemented as, [...], xApps located at Near-Real-Time (RT) RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) and/or, [...], rApps at Non-RT RIC in ORAN framework. [...], the INSM 150 can be implemented as an edge application (app) such as a MEC app operating in a MEC host (see e.g., [MEC]), an Edge Application Server (EAS) and/or Edge Configuration Server (ECS),..."). 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 D’Oro include different implementations of xApps and rApps as taught by Fessard so as to provide a satisfactory response based on user gestures and other touch-free actions.
Claim 6, D’Oro in view of Fessard discloses The method of claim 5. D’Oro may not explicitly disclose wherein the small agent is an agent of a near-real time RIC application, and the agent is separate from the one or more of the CU or the DU.
Fessard discloses wherein the small agent is an agent of a near-real time RIC application, and the agent is separate from the one or more of the CU or the DU (fig. 3 and par. [0037], "...signaling 300 between the INSM 150 and a DU 1015,..."). 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 D’Oro include different implementations of xApps and rApps as taught by Fessard so as to provide a satisfactory response based on user gestures and other touch-free actions.
Claim 10, 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 6.
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250260629 A1 - Provided are a method, system, and device for managing interactions between an O-Cloud Resources Management and Orchestration (ORMO) Service Management Orchestration Function (SMOF) and a Radio Access Network Operations Administration Maintenance (RANOAM) function. The method may include receiving, by the ORMO, a service related to an SMOF from a Service Management and Exposure (SME); sending, by the ORMO, a request to the SMOF to drain traffic of at least one network function (NF); and sending, by the ORMO, a request to a Topology Exposure and Inventory Management (TE/IV) to update an inventory.
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