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 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the pending claims, applicant argues that Yao fails to teach providing, by the computing device, the configuration data to the equipment node to cause the equipment node to reallocate one or more computing resources from a first function to a second function in accordance with the identified allocation of resources. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument.
Examiner notes paragraphs 102, 105 and 120, which teaches the various measures taken in response to a predicted network issue. Paragraphs 102 and 105 recite “re-configurations of coverage related attributes”, and paragraph 111 which recites “the recommended actions may be for example to schedule the “scale-in” and “scale out” of VNFs to dynamically (re-)allocate the virtualized resources to where they are needed, or to create/update the resource allocation policy for different network slices to allow the network slices getting different percentage of resources in different time periods according the traffic patterns”. It is the examiner’s belief that this reads on providing, by the computing device, the configuration data to the equipment node to cause the equipment node to reallocate one or more computing resources from a first function to a second function in accordance with the identified allocation of resources, as the resources being dynamically re-allocated would comprise changing the functions being performed by at least some of the computing resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2021/0037400 (Yao et al.)
As to claims 1, 10 and 17, Yao teaches a system comprising:
an Operations Support System (OSS) device (see paragraphs 60, 62 and 120, OSS consumes MSAS so that it may provision services and handle faults in wireless network) configured to:
receive status information relating to operation of at least one equipment node (see paragraphs 71, 81 and 82, MDAS collects various performance metrics of wireless network);
determine, based on the status information, a predicted issue associated with the at least one equipment node (see paragraphs 71, 110 and 120, predicting potential issues/failures based on collected performance metrics);
identify an allocation of resources associated with the predicted issue; generate instructions associated with the allocation of resources; and provide the instructions to the at least one equipment node (see paragraphs 102, 105 and 111, various mitigation measures taken to resolve predicted issues); and
the at least one equipment node configured to reallocate one or more computing resources from a first function to a second function in accordance with the received instructions (see paragraphs 31, 102, 105 and 111, RAN nodes such as base station would implement the various mitigation measures such as creating new cells, beams, virtual network resources, slices or adding/changing physical units. Network resources such as virtual network functions may be re-configured/re-allocated as part of the mitigation measures).
As to claim 5, Yao further teaches providing a request to an administrator device operated by an administrative user of a network that includes the equipment node (see paragraph 78, human operator may be provided with information from OSS+MDAS so that they may decide what measure to take).
As to claim 6, Yao further teaches wherein the configuration data is provided to the equipment node upon receiving an authorization from the administrator device (see paragraphs 78 and 79, mitigation measures decided by human operator executed).
As to claim 7, Yao further teaches wherein reallocating the one or more computing resources comprises stopping the first function on a set of computing resources and starting the second function on the set of computing resources (see paragraphs 102, 105 and 111, network resources may be re-configured/re-allocated as part of the mitigation measures).
As to claim 8, Yao further teaches wherein the status information includes metric values associated with a performance of the equipment node (see paragraphs 71, 81 and 82, MDAS collects various performance metrics of wireless network).
As to claim 11, Yao further teaches wherein the predicted issue is determined based on one or more metrics indicated in the status information exceeding a threshold metric value within a predetermined amount of time (see paragraphs 82-100, various quantifiable metrics are measured for a time period to determine if there is a potential issue).
As to claim 12, Yao further teaches wherein the allocation of resources comprises additional computing resources dedicated to a function associated with the predicted issue (see paragraphs 102, 105 and 111, network resources may be added as part of the mitigation measures).
As to claim 13, Yao further teaches wherein the configuration data comprises an indication of the allocation of resources and instructions to implement the allocation of resources (see paragraphs 31, 102, 105 and 111, RAN nodes such as base station would implement the various mitigation measures such as creating new cells, beams, virtual network resources, slices or adding/changing physical units).
As to claim 14, Yao further teaches wherein the status information includes at least one metric value associated with a performance of the equipment node (see paragraphs 71, 81 and 82, MDAS collects various performance metrics of wireless network).
As to claim 15, Yao further teaches wherein determining the predicted issue associated with the equipment node comprises determining that the at least one metric value exceeds a threshold value for a period of time (see paragraphs 82-100, various quantifiable metrics are measured for a time period to determine if there is a potential issue).
As to claim 16, Yao further teaches wherein the status information is received at periodic intervals (see paragraphs 81 and 118, metrics collected periodically).
As to claim 18, Yao further teaches wherein the at least one equipment node comprises a base station (see paragraph 31).
As to claim 19, Yao further teaches wherein the base station services multiple user devices operating on a cellular network (see paragraph 32, UE served by RAN).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 2-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of US 2022/0386225 (Sapra et al.).
As to claim 2, Yao further teaches receiving, at the computing device, second status information relating to the equipment node; determining, by the computing device based on the second status information, that the predicted issue is resolved (see paragraphs 103).
What is lacking from Yao is and providing, by the computing device to the equipment node, instructions to cause the equipment node to reallocate the one or more computing resources to a default configuration.
In analogous art, Sapra teaches reverting a network node to a default configuration after an issue has determined to have been resolved (see Sapra, paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sapra, for those situations where the predicted issue is transitory and only requires a temporary solution.
As to claim 3, Yao further teaches wherein determining that the predicted issue is resolved is based on one or more conditions being met for a period of time (see paragraphs 82-83 and 103, various quantifiable metrics are measured for a time period to determine if an issue has been solved or mitigated).
As to claim 4, Yao further teaches wherein the one or more conditions being met comprise at least one data value determined from the status information exceeding a threshold data value (see paragraphs 82-100 and 103, various quantifiable metrics are measured for a time period to determine if an issue has been solved or mitigated).
As to claim 20, what is lacking from Yao is wherein the at least one equipment node is further configured to implement a previous allocation of the one or more computing resources upon a determination that the predicted issue has been mitigated..
In analogous art, Sapra teaches reverting a network node to a default or previously pre-issue configuration after an issue has determined to have been resolved (see Sapra, paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sapra, for those situations where the predicted issue is transitory and only requires a temporary solution.
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claim 9, what is lacking from Yao is wherein the predicted issue is determined based on an indication in the status information of a number of connection requests occurring over a period of time.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a network issue on the basis of a number of connection requests occurring over a period of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sapra so as to remedy potential overloading of the network, potentially by bad faith actors.
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights