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) 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner points out that in the claims, stating that “the one or more assurance goals” are “for a target location identified by at least one tracking area identity” only expresses the purpose of the goals but does not in any way change how they are defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-19, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is amended as follows:
receiving, from an ACCL consumer, one or more assurance goals associated with an ACCL derived by the ACCL consumer from at least one of a service profile or a slice profile,
Claim 9 is amended as follows:
receive, from an ACCL consumer, one or more assurance goals associated with an ACCL derived by the ACCL consumer from at least one of a service profile or a slice profile,
The applicant disclosed the following:
[56] In another embodiment, the ACCL consumer 401 may be directly associated with the ACCL system 101. The ACCL system 101 comprises a ACCL provider 402, a Network Slice/ Network Slice Subnet provisioning Management Service (MnS provider 403 (referred as provisioning MnS provider 403 in Figure 4), and a performance assurance MnS provider 404 (referred as performance MnS provider 404 in Figure 4). Referring to step 411, the ACCL consumer 401 may identify/derive the one or more assurance goals from the service profile or slice profile. At step 412, the ACCL consumer 401 may identify/derive the one or more assurance goals for at least one of, the one or more target locations and the one or more target UEs. At step 413, the ACCL consumer 401 may provide the one or more assurance goals to the ACCL provider 402.
Claim 3 previously covered:
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more assurance goals are derived by the ACCL consumer from at least one of a service profile or a slice profile
The preamble of claim 1 defines an ACCL as an assurance closed control loop. The applicant did not originally disclose that an ACCL is derived from at least one service profile or a slice profile as now claimed. For examination purposes it will be assumed that the applicant is trying to actually claim what is disclosed in paragraph 52 regarding goals derived from a service profile or slice profile.
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, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 15 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
The applicant argues in their 8/12/2016 remarks that:
Amended Claim 1 requires receiving, from an ACCL consumer, one or more assurance goals derived by the ACCL consumer from at least one of a service profile or a slice profile. Critically, the claim requires that the assurance goals are derived by the ACCL consumer, meaning the assurance goals are determined at the consumer side.
Claim 1 covers a method performed by an electronic device (ACCL system 101) that is not the ACCL consumer (See Figure 4). Claim 9 covers electronic device ACCL system 101 that is not the ACCL consumer. The applicant is arguing that the ACCL consumer deriving assurance goals is critical to the claimed invention but the applicant is not covering this critical feature because the actions performed by the ACCL consumer are beyond the scope of the claims, which only cover ACCL system 101. How the assurance goals might have been created by the ACCL consumer does not change the scope of how they are received by ACCL system 101.
The applicant is encouraged to claims a system including both the ACCL system 101 and the ACCL consumer if the applicant wants to cover actions performed by the ACCL consumer.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 11,418,970 by Kim et al.
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a method of providing wireless communication network assurance by an electronic device (Application Function in Figure 10) supporting participating in an assurance closed control loop (ACCL), the method comprising: receiving, from an ACCL consumer (UE in Figure 10), one or more assurance goals (col. 20, lines 38-43, step 1001) associated with an ACCL derived by the ACCL consumer from at least one of a service profile (col. 13, lines 41-53, the QOS goals are derived from the VSX service profile), wherein the one or more assurance goals are for a target location (areas served by PMMN #1 or #2) identified by at least one tracking area identity (TAI) (PLMN); obtaining measurement data for the target location from a performance management service (MnS) provider (col. 20, line 47-col. 21, line 5, steps 1003-1006); determining whether the one or more assurance goals are fulfilled based on the measurement data (col. 21, lines 1-13, AF selects a PLMN based on collected data); and transmitting information related to a fulfilment of the one or more assurance goals to the ACCL consumer (col. 21, lines 1-13, step 1007).
As t claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 4 and 12, see steps 1003 and 1005.
As to claim 5 and 13, see col. 21, lines 1-13.
As to claim 7, see step 1008.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,418,970 by Kim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0377814 by Sillanpaa.
As to claims 8 and 15, Kim teaches the subject matter of claims 7 and 9, however Kim does not teach mitigating actions include decreasing a maximum number of users allocated per slice or adding one or more network resources.
Sillanpaa teaches the idea of performing a mitigation action that decreases maximum number of users allocated per a slice (quotas are limited) and adding one or more network resources (resources are reserved for slice users) when goals are not fulfilled (Figure 8 and corresponding disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Kim regarding managing service to devices in a mobile network with the teachings of Sillanpaa regarding mitigating actions because such mitigation actions by Sillanpaa allow for more precise management of the resources of the network of Kim.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights