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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 9/14/2023 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/14/2023 are accepted.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US-2020/0084830 hereinafter, Liu).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches a user equipment (Fig. 4 [UE]) in a telecommunications network (Page 1 [0003]), comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor (memory and processor are inherent to a UE that communicates with a base station, see Page 10 [0139] “a processing capability of the UE” and Page 4 [0057 & 0064] i.e. UE communicating with the eNB and “work task to be executed in the UE”) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
transmit a request (Fig. 4 [41]) to a network device (Fig. 4 [Core network device]) for checking a feasibility of a goal for automation in the telecommunication network (Page 9 [0123]), wherein the goal is decomposable into a set of configurable conditions, a set of subgoals, or a combination thereof; (Page 9 [0130-0131] “ a task includes the first child task and the second child task, and there may be a dependency relationship between execution of the child tasks”) and
receive a response from the network device based on whether the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof are able to be set in the telecommunication network. (Fig. 4 [44, 46 and 47] and Page 9 [0123-0129] “sends the first processing indication information to the UE”)
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches wherein the goal comprises:
a list of name-value pairs that indicate a key performance indicator (KPI) goal;
an assurance goal;
a control loop goal;
a maximum criteria;
a minimum criteria; (Page 6 [0082] i.e. required resources and Page 7 [0098] i.e. incapable of executing)
an inequality;
an equality constraint;
a portion of an intent;
or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches wherein the network device comprises a goal feasibility check service producer, a management system, a management service producer or a combination thereof. (Page 7 [0097-0098] “if the core network device is incapable of executing the second child task, the eNB may use an independent device (if the independent device exists), in an access network, in which MEC is deployed or an Internet server instead of the core network device as the apparatus for executing the second child task, and send the second processing indication information to the Internet server” and Page 9 [0123])
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 11. Note: controller, memory and processor are all inherent to a user equipment or apparatus communicating with a network device. (Page 10 [0139] “a processing capability of the UE” and Fig. 4 [41])
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the limitations of claims 17 and 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 12 and 15.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US-2022/0060388) in view of McGrath et al. (US-11,159,609 hereinafter, McGrath).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an apparatus for performing network function in a telecommunication network (Fig. 2B [NWDAF]), the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; (Fig. 12 [1230]) and
at least one processor (Fig. 12 [1220]) coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 12 [1230] and Page 17 [0222]) and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive a request (Fig. 2B [Invoke the network data analytics service]) from a consumer device (Fig. 2B [Consumer of a network data analytics service]) for checking a feasibility of a goal for automation in the telecommunication network; (Page 8 [0092] “The consumer of the network data analytics service requests the NWDAF instance provided by the NRF to invoke a network data analytics service. After receiving a service request, the NWDAF instance collects and analyzes required data, and then outputs an analytics result to the consumer of the network data analytics service.”)
decompose the goal into a set of configurable conditions, a set of subgoals, or a combination thereof; (Pages 13-14 [0172-0173] i.e. dividing the task into subtasks to be performed by additional NWDAFs, Fig. 7B [S708, S709a and S709b] note: figure does not match description as labels are incorrect, see Page 14 [0175 & 0176])
receive a result of the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof; (Page 14 [0183-0186] i.e. result of the analysis) and
transmit a response to the consumer device. (Fig. 7B [S714] and Page 14 [0186])
Li differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting determine whether the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof are able to be set in the telecommunication network and transmit a response based on whether the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof are able to be set in the telecommunication network.
In an analogous art, McGrath teaches a method and system to determine whether and how to onboard workloads for edge computing (Abstract) that includes decomposing a goal into a set of configurable conditions, a set of subgoals, or a combination thereof; (Fig. 10 [2016] and Col. 42 lines 1-6 and 39-54)
determining whether the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof are able to be set in the telecommunication network (Col. 43 lines 46-60) and
deploying the workload based on whether the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof are able to be set in the telecommunication network. (Fig. 25 [2512 & 2514])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Li after modifying it to incorporate the ability to determining whether the set of configurable conditions, the set of subgoals, or the combination thereof are able to be set in the telecommunication network of McGrath since it enables the ability to determine whether the required quality of service and respective business/service level agreements can be fulfilled based on the available resources. (McGrath Col. 7 line 44 through Col. 8 line 9)
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of McGrath teaches wherein the goal comprises:
a list of name-value pairs that indicate a key performance indicator (KPI) goal;
an assurance goal;
a control loop goal;
a maximum criteria; (McGrath Col. 42 lines 33-38 “upper bound for latency”)
a minimum criteria;
an inequality;
an equality constraint;
a portion of an intent;
or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of McGrath teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine a set of actions to be performed in response to the goal not being met. (Li Page 1 [0015] “when the first network data analytics function network element cannot meet the first analytics filtering information, the first network data analytics function network element allocates an analytics task to another network data analytics function network element” and McGrath Fig. 20 [2032] i.e. node excluded)
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of McGrath teaches wherein the request comprises a limited reservation time corresponding to the goal. (Li Page 8-9 [0096] “Analytics filtering parameters carried when the consumer of the analytics service requests network function load analytics include a network function instance identifier (for example, the UPF 5 and the UPF 6) and a time period (for example, three hours in the future) for requesting analytics”)
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of McGrath teaches a goal feasibility check service provider, a management system, a management service provider or a combination thereof. (Li Page 1 [0015] “the first network data analytics function network element allocates an analytics task to another network data analytics function network element” i.e. management and McGrath Fig. 20 [2032] i.e. node excluded ~ management)
Regarding claims 8-10, the limitations of claims 8-10 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1-3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of McGrath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (US-8,655,824 hereinafter, Allen).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of McGrath teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting determining whether there are:
conflicting goals corresponding to the goal;
unsettable goals corresponding to the goal;
conflicting conditions corresponding to the goal;
unsettable conditions corresponding to the goal;
unconfigurable entities corresponding to the goal;
or a combination thereof.
In an analogous art, Allen teaches a global policy framework analyzer (Abstract) that includes analyzing a set of policies (Fig. 13 and Col. 29 lines 22-61) and determining whether there are: conflicting goals corresponding to the goal; (Fig. 9 [916] and Col. 22 line 64 through Col. 23 line 3)
unsettable goals corresponding to the goal;
conflicting conditions corresponding to the goal;
unsettable conditions corresponding to the goal;
unconfigurable entities corresponding to the goal;
or a combination thereof.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Li in view of McGrath after modifying it to incorporate the ability to determine whether there are conflicting goals corresponding to the goal of Allen since it enables determining conditions that can cause indeterminate results which could be irrelevant or not applicable to the user. (Allen Col. 22 line 64 through Col. 23 line 3)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of McGrath as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kawalkar (US-2015/0139441).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of McGrath teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein a reservation for the goal is removed in response to the limited reservation time elapsing.
In an analogous art, Kawalkar teaches a system and method for monitoring the status of various tasks (Abstract) that includes having a limited time reservation time corresponding to a task and a reservation for the goal is removed in response to the limited reservation time elapsing. (Page 6-7 [0054] “This reminder may be aural and/or visual and take the form of "Approach briefing incomplete, continue?" If the pilot does not respond within a predetermined period of time, then all task contexts and internal objects related to the incomplete speech input task would be deleted”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Li in view of McGrath after modifying it to incorporate the ability to delete tasks that are not completed during a required time window of Kawalkar since it saves processing power by not performing the task when the task requirement went unmet.
Claims 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Kawalkar (US-2015/0139441).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Liu teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the request comprises a limited time reservation time corresponding to the goal, wherein a reservation for the goal is removed in response to the limited reservation time elapsing.
In an analogous art, Kawalkar teaches a system and method for monitoring the status of various tasks (Abstract) that includes having a limited time reservation time corresponding to a task and a reservation for the goal is removed in response to the limited reservation time elapsing. (Page 6-7 [0054] “This reminder may be aural and/or visual and take the form of "Approach briefing incomplete, continue?" If the pilot does not respond within a predetermined period of time, then all task contexts and internal objects related to the incomplete speech input task would be deleted”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Lu after modifying it to incorporate the ability to delete tasks that are not completed during a required time window of Kawalkar since it saves processing power by not performing the task when the task requirement went unmet.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations of claims 18 and 19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 13 and 14.
The Examiner additionally notes with respect to claims 14 and 19, it is not clear to the Examiner that the UE is performing the step of “remove” and accordingly, the scope of patentability of claims 14 and 19 appear to be directed to a device other than that being examined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11,876,688 to Rehman et al. which discloses systems and methods for policy based monitoring of KPIs for a wireless network
US-11,696,184 to Tiwari et al. which discloses network slice modifications based upon QoS profile, performance information and thresholds
US-2019/0020553 to Rajagopal et al. which discloses virtual network functions and monitoring related KPIs.
US-2012/0089959 to Park which discloses generating a service flow based upon key word input from a user to meet goals/subgoals
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights