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 (IDS) was submitted on 12/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “decode from the performance measurements data a measurement label” (line 8). It is suggested to replace it with “decode, from the performance measurements data, a measurement label” for more clarity. Claim 12 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites, “. . . based on a number of application function (AF) session with quality of service (QoS) creation requests, a number of successful AF session with QoS creation, a number of failed AF session with QoS creation, or a number of AF session with QoS notifications.” (lines 1-4). It is suggested to replace it with “. . . based on: a number of application function (AF) session with quality of service (QoS) creation requests; a number of successful AF session with QoS creation; a number of failed AF session with QoS creation; or a number of AF session with QoS notifications” for more clarity. Claims 4-5 and 14-16 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the number of AF session with QoS creation requests …, the number of successful AF sessions with QoS creations …, the number of failed AF session with QoS creations …, and the number of AF session with QoS notification …” (lines 1-9). Each of the above elements is an optional limitation in claim 3. Thus, it is unclear whether such an element is even used in claim 8, since the corresponding does not exist in claim 3. Claims 9 and 19-20 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al (US Publication No. 2021/0014141 A1) in view of Kunz et al (US Publication No. 2024/0129739 A1)1.
Regarding claim 1, Patil discloses, an apparatus for a service producer in a 5G system (5GS) [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0053, NWDAF 268 for a service producer in a 5G system; further see ¶0012 “A Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) is an operator-managed network analytics logical function defined for 5G network”] comprising:
a processor [FIG. 3; ¶0044, processor 320, note that every network device has at least one processor] configured to:
decode a service request received from a service consumer for the 5GS [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0054, the NWDAF 268 receives an analytic information request 420 from a NF 410-1], wherein the service request is associated with a performance measurement collection service to be delivered by the service producer to the service consumer related to a network exposure function (NEF) [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0054, the analytic information request 420 is associated with analytic service data (including a load level, a service experience, NF load analytic information, network load performance, expected behavior information, abnormal behavior information, mobility related information, or congestion information) (i.e., (i.e., performance measurements data) to be sent by the NWDAF 268 to the NF 410-1 related to a NEF 260];
detect performance measurements data received from the NEF [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0056-0057, the NWDAF 268 receives data notifications 435/440 (via NEF 260) and apply, train, or update an analytics model 445 that reflects a result/indicator for the requested analytics service; which requires detecting of the analytic service data (i.e., performance measurements data) received from the NEF];
decode from the performance measurements data a measurement . . . associated with the performance measurements data based on the service request [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0054 and 0057-0058, the NWDAF 268 receives data notifications 435/440 (via NEF 260) and apply, train, or update an analytics model 445 that reflects a result/indicator for the requested analytics service; which requires decoding the analytic service data (i.e., performance measurements data) based on analytic information request 420]; and
encode a service response based on the performance measurements data received from the NEF [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0060, the NWDAF 268 generates/transmits an analytics report 450 based on the analytic service data (i.e., performance measurements data) received from the NEF 260]; and
a memory [FIG. 4; ¶0044, memory 330; note that every network device has at least one processor] to store the performance measurements data [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0060, the NWDAF 268 generates/transmits an analytics report 450 based on the performance data received from the NEF 260; which requires storing the performance data].
Although Patil discloses, “decode from the performance measurements data a measurement . . . associated with the performance measurements data based on the service request” as set forth above, Patil does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), “a measurement . . .” is modified to be “a measurement label”.
However, Kunz discloses, decode from the performance measurements data a measurement label associated with the performance measurements data based on the service request [¶0086, the data consumer #1 301 subscribes for data notifications for a specific data tag. The data tag includes information to identify the data required (e.g., a set of Event ID(s) from data producer NF), information to identify the UE (single UE, group of UE(s) or any UE, optionally information to identify the data producer, and filtering information such as location area or time of day where data is required from; which results in receiving/decoding, from the data, the set of event IDs based on the service request (i.e., subscribes for data notifications)] see also e.g., ¶0070 and ¶0077-0078 of US Provisional App. No. 63/151,473.
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Patil with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kunz to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kunz into the system of Patil would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure correct identification and interpretation of measured metrics and data for accurate analysis and reporting, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Patil in view of Kunz discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Patil discloses, wherein decoding the service request triggers the NEF to initiate a generation and delivery of the performance measurements data [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0054 and 0057-0058, the NWDAF receiving/receiving the analytic information request from the NF 410-1 results in the NEF 260 generating and delivering of the analytic service data].
Regarding claim 6, Patil in view of Kunz discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Patil discloses, wherein the service producer is outside the NEF in a separate management system [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0053, the NWDAF 268 is outside the NEF 260 in a separate system].
Regarding claim 12, Patil discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors for a service producer in a 5G system (5GS) ¶0012 “A Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) is an operator-managed network analytics logical function defined for 5G network”] result in performing operations [FIG. 4; ¶0044 and 0089-0091, memory 330 storing program code executed by processor(s) to perform action(s); note that every network device has at least one memory ].
Since claim 12 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Claims 3, 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al (US Publication No. 2021/0014141 A1) in view of Kunz et al (US Publication No. 2024/0129739 A1) and further in view of 3GPP TS 28.552 V17.3.1 “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; 5G performance measurements (Release 17)” (hereinafter, “3GPP1”)2 and further in view of Wei et al (US Publication No. 2024/0064557 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Patil in view of Kunz discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Patil in view of Kunz does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but 3GPP1 discloses, wherein the performance measurement is based on a number of failed AF session . . . [page 197; section 5.9.5.1.3, Number of failed AF traffic influence creations].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature of 3GPP1 is well known/established in the telecommunication art as recited in 3GPP standard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Patil in view of Kunz, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world.
Further, Patil in view of Kunz and 3GPP1 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Wei et al (US Publication No. 2024/0064557 A1) discloses, a number of failed AF session with QoS creation [¶0198, In step 1 (“Nnef AFsessionWithQoS_Create request (QoS flow descriptions and QoS req., external traffic group ID, Group QoS requirement(s), etc.)”) 701, AF 506 sends per traffic flow a request for, setting up an AF session with required QoS” to NEF 502, e.g., AF session With QoS create request, with QoS flow descriptions and QoS requirements, and additional external traffic group ID and Group QoS requirement(s) (as shown in example below)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Patil in view of Kunz and 3GPP1 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Wei to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Wei into the system of Patil in view of Kunz and 3GPP1 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to simultaneously support diverse applications, so the network meets specific application demands with precision and maximize resource utilization, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, Patil in view of Kunz, 3GPP1 and Wei discloses, the apparatus of claim 3 and particularly, “the number of failed AF session with QoS creations” as set forth above.
Patil in view of Kunz does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but 3GPP1 further discloses, the number of . . . is cumulated on transmission of an . . . by the NEF to an AF indicating a failed . . and each message increments a relevant subcounter per failure cause by 1 [page 207; section 5.9.9.1.3, Transmission by the NEF of an Nnef_BDTPNegotiation_Create response message to AF indicating a failed background data transfer policy negotiation creation (see 3GPP TS 29.522 [44]), each message increments the relevant subcounter per failure cause by 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Patil in view of Kunz for similar rationales set forth above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Claims 4, 9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al (US Publication No. 2021/0014141 A1) in view of Kunz et al (US Publication No. 2024/0129739 A1) and further in view of 3GPP TS 28.552 V17.3.1 “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; 5G performance measurements (Release 17)” (hereinafter, “3GPP1”).
Regarding claim 4, Patil in view of Kunz discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Patil in view of Kunz does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but 3GPP1 discloses, wherein the performance measurement is based on a number of background data transfer policy application requests [pages 207-208; section 5.9.9.1.1, Number of background data transfer policy negotiation creation requests], a number of successful background data transfer policy applications [pages 207-208; section 5.9.9.1.2, Number of successful background data transfer policy negotiation creations], a number of failed background data transfer policy applications [pages 207-208; section 5.9.9.1.3, Number of failed background data transfer policy negotiation creations], a number of background data transfer policy update requests [pages 207-208; section 5.9.9.1.4, Number of background data transfer policy negotiation update requests], a number of successful background data transfer policy updates [pages 207-208; section 5.9.9.1.5, Number of successful background data transfer policy negotiation updates], a number of failed background data transfer policy updates [pages 207-208; section 5.9.9.1.6, Number of failed background data transfer policy negotiation updates].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature of 3GPP1 is well known/established in the telecommunication art as recited in 3GPP standard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Patil in view of Kunz, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world.
Regarding claim 9, Patil in view of Kunz and 3GPP1 discloses, the apparatus of claim 4 as set forth above.
Patil in view of Kunz does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but 3GPP TS 28.552 V17.3.1 “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; 5G performance measurements (Release 17)” (hereinafter, “3GPP1”)3 discloses, wherein the number of failed background data transfer policy applications is cumulated on transmission by the NEF of an Nnef ApplyPolicyCreate response message to AF indicating a failed background data transfer policy application and each message increments a relevant subcounter per failure cause by 1 [page 207; section 5.9.9.1.3, Transmission by the NEF of an Nnef_BDTPNegotiation_Create response message to AF indicating a failed background data transfer policy negotiation creation (see 3GPP TS 29.522 [44]), each message increments the relevant subcounter per failure cause by 1], the number of failed background data transfer policy updates is cumulated on transmission by the NEF of an Nnef ApplyPolicyUpdate response message to AF indicating a failed background data transfer policy update and each message increments a relevant subcounter per failure cause by 1 [page 207; section 5.9.9.1.6, Transmission by the NEF of an Nnef_BDTPNegotiation Update response message to AF indicating a failed background data transfer policy negotiation (see 3GPP TS 29.522 [44]), each message increments the relevant subcounter per failure cause by 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Patil in view of Kunz for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9.
Claims 7, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al (US Publication No. 2021/0014141 A1) in view of Kunz et al (US Publication No. 2024/0129739 A1) and further in view of Snow et al (US Publication No. 2019/0354607 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Patil in view of Kunz discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Patil in view of Kunz does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Snow discloses, wherein to generate a first performance measurement comprises the processor being further configured to initiate a cumulative counter for measurements during a collection period [¶0056, as the data records 132 are generated, exemplary embodiments may sum or count the entries 228, entry blocks 230, and/or the directory blocks 220 that are generated over time (such as per second, per minute, or other interval) (i.e., collection period). The cloud-based blockchain service 122, for example, calls or initializes a counter having an initial value (such as zero). At an initial time, the counter commences or starts counting or summing the number of the entries 228].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Patil in view of Kunz with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Snow to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Snow into the system of Patil in view of Kunz would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure accurate measurement and clean baseline to avoid any distortion from prior data, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 11, Patil in view of Kunz and Snow discloses, the apparatus of claim 7 as set forth above.
Patil in view of Kunz does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Snow discloses, wherein an initial value of the cumulative counter is set to zero at a beginning of every collection period [¶0056, as the data records 132 are generated, exemplary embodiments may sum or count the entries 228, entry blocks 230, and/or the directory blocks 220 that are generated over time (such as per second, per minute, or other interval) (i.e., collection period). The cloud-based blockchain service 122, for example, calls or initializes a counter having an initial value (such as zero). At an initial time, the counter commences or starts counting or summing the number of the entries 228].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Snow in the system of Patil in view of Kunz for similar rationales set forth above in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and/or to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yao et al (US Publication No. 2019/0253912 A1) [FIGS. 13 and 17; ¶0098]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Kunz claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/151,473 filed on 02/19/2021, thus Kunz is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 08/06/2021.
2 3GPP1 was cited in an IDS.
3 3GPP1 was cited in an IDS.