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 filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s claim language lacks precision and coherence. The applicant has amended the first limitation of claim 1 and 9 to specifying “receiving one or more assurance goals associated with the ACCL for a target location from an ACCL consumer”. The applicant does not define any “ACCL for a target location” and even if the applicant did, it is not clear how the term “associated with” limits the received goals based on the ACCL for the target location. The applicant then amended to claim to “obtaining measurement data for the target location from a performance management service (MnS) provider” but this language is so broad that it does preclude situations where all measurement data is obtained, where the entirety of the data would include any data for an individual target location. Additionally, the applicant does not even define, in the claims, what the “target location” is.
With this in mind, the applicant’s argument that “Yang does not disclose that the eSON management device receives the target SLA target for a target location, from the UE” is irrelevant to the scope of the current claims because the claims do not define or cover a target location in any coherent manner. The applicant’s arguments regarding ACCL are not persuasive because the applicant is not specifically claiming ACCL and the specification does not provide a limiting definition of ACCL that precludes the data from Yang from reading on the claimed. The applicant has not incorporated any documents by reference which define the concept of ACCL. Instead, the applicant is claiming a device and method “supporting an ACCL” and assurance goals are “associated with” ACCL. The applicant’s argument’s regarding ACCL are not supported by the language of either the claims or the disclosure and therefore are irrelevant to the patentability of the claims.
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, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-15 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.
Claim 1 and 9 recite the limitation "the ACCL for a target location" in the first limitation of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant does not define an “ACCL for a target location”. The preambles of claims 1 and 9 state that the respective method and device are for “supporting an assurance closed control loop (ACCL) for providing wireless communication network assurance”. Supporting an ACCL is a statement of intended use and does not limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). Additionally, the preamble does not even reference any specific ACCL “for a target location”. It is not clear how the received goals are even supposed to be “associated with” the ACCL for a target location.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation "the target location" in the second limitation of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims previously refer to “the ACCL for a target location” but not an actually target location that is defined in any manner by the claim. It is therefore not clear what the applicant is referring to by “the target location”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent Application Publication number 2019/0372837 by Yang et al.
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a method of providing wireless communication network assurance by an electronic device supporting an ACCL, the method comprising: receiving one or more assurance goals (paragraph 27, SLA) associated with the ACCL for a target location (paragraphs 18 and 30 and Figure 3, the SLA is applied to localized resources in particular slices) from an ACCL consumer (UE); obtaining measurement data for the target location (paragraphs 48 and 49) from a performance management service provider (the data is monitored from and thus “obtained” from the edge cloud 110); and determining whether the one or more assurance goals are complied based on the measurement data (paragraphs 41, 48, and 49).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
As to claims 4 and 12, see paragraphs 41, 48, 49, 68 and 74.
As to claims 5 and 13, see paragraphs 41, 48, 49, 68 and 74.
As to claims 7, 8, and 15, see paragraphs 37 and 45.
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) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent Application Publication number 2019/0372837 by Yang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0317157 by Baek et al.
As to claim 3, Yang teaches the subject matter of claim 1 including wherein the one or more assurance goals are derived by the ACCL consumer (UE) from the slice profile (paragraphs 28-31, SLA is directed towards localized slice) however Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the target location is associated with a tracking area identity (TAI).
Baek teaches monitoring goals for target location a tracking area identity (TAI) (paragraphs 201-207).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yang regarding monitoring goals related to RAN with the teachings of Baek regarding monitoring a target location using a TAI because such information can help to better track the experience of UEs accessing the network environment.
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