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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 11 April 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are amended and currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9 June 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (specifically the Chinese Office Action dated 16 May 2025). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2 January 2025 and 5 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 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.
Citations to Applicant’s specification are taken from United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0244522.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 recite either “usable to indicate” or “usable to determine”. As an example, Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 recite “the key performance index impact is usable to indicate an acceptable key index decreasing range.” However, the scope of this claim language does not clearly convey whether the key performance index impact does indicate the specified range. As described in paragraph 0144 of the specification:
“(t)he key performance index impact indicates a KPI and an acceptable KPI decreasing range concerned by the MDAS consumer in energy saving analysis. For example, the KPI impact indicates a maximum acceptable KPI decreasing value (decreasing value), and the decreasing value may be a numerical value or a proportion value.”
However, while this illustrates what the KPI impact indicates, it does not describe how the KPI impact is “usable” to do so. Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17.
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19 recite “usable to indicate at least one of an energy saving area, an energy saving analysis period…” and are rejected for similar reasoning as described above.
“usable to indicate” – the scope of the claim is not clear as to how or whether the “acceptable key index decreasing range” is indicated by the key performance index impact.
Claims 5, 9, 15 and 19 recite “usable to determine the second information” (5 and 15) and “usable to determine the first recommendation” (9 and 19). However, similar to the issue described above for “usable to indicate”, the claim language is not clear whether the disclosed parameters are used to determine the recited parameter.
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)(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, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0164598), hereinafter Yao598.
Regarding Claim 11, Yao598 discloses an apparatus (Figure 4 and paragraph 0093 - a block diagram illustrating components…able to read instructions from a machine-readable or computer-readable medium (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and perform any one or more of the methodologies in Yao598’s disclosure), comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 4 - processors 410); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having program instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor (Figure 4 – memory/storage devices 420; also refer to paragraph 0095), cause the apparatus to:
receive first information from a second device, wherein the first information includes an energy saving target of a network, and the energy saving target includes at least one of energy consumption reduction and energy efficiency improvement (paragraph 0020 - various performance measurements are used as inputs by a MDA producer, such as energy efficiency (EE) related performance measurements, (e.g. PDCP data volume of cells, PNF temperature, and PNF power consumption, etc.) for gNBs, and the data volume, number of PDU sessions with SSC mode 1, delay related measurements, and VR usage for UPFs; refer also to paragraph 0035 – data required at the MDA for analyzing the energy saving issue); and
send an energy saving analysis result corresponding to the energy saving target to the second device (paragraphs 0034 and 0036 – the MDA producer correlates and analyses the management data to generate an analytics report comprising energy saving instructions).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 11. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 16, Yao598 discloses an apparatus (Figure 4 and paragraph 0093 - a block diagram illustrating components…able to read instructions from a machine-readable or computer-readable medium (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and perform any one or more of the methodologies in Yao598’s disclosure), comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 4 - processors 410); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having program instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the at least one processor (Figure 4 – memory/storage devices 420; also refer to paragraph 0095), cause the apparatus to:
send first information to a first device, wherein the first information includes an energy saving target of a network, and the energy saving target includes at least one of energy consumption reduction and energy efficiency improvement (paragraph 0020 - various performance measurements are used as inputs by a MDA producer, such as energy efficiency (EE) related performance measurements, (e.g. PDCP data volume of cells, PNF temperature, and PNF power consumption, etc.) for gNBs, and the data volume, number of PDU sessions with SSC mode 1, delay related measurements, and VR usage for UPFs; refer also to paragraph 0035 – data required at the MDA for analyzing the energy saving issue); and
receive, an energy saving analysis result corresponding to the energy saving target from the first device (paragraphs 0034 and 0036 – the MDA producer correlates and analyses the management data to generate an analytics report comprising energy saving instructions).
Claim 6 is a method claim comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 16. Therefore, Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 16.
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.
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, 7-9, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao598 in view of Eriksson (WIPO Publication 2020/147927).
Regarding Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17, Yao598 discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16, as described above. However, Yao598 does not disclose receiving key performance index impact of the network, wherein the key performance index impact is usable to indicate an acceptable key index decreasing range. In an analogous art, Eriksson discloses this. Specifically, Eriksson discloses an NWDAF receiving KPIs and thresholds of interest received from a user during PDU Session establishment, and checking whether the statistics of QoS KPIs information is below any of the threshold(s) provided by the user for a given amount of time, compared to the QoS KPI that the user has negotiated for the ongoing PDU Session. NWDAF 150 may also check if the difference between the expected and the predicted QoS KPI is higher than a predefined threshold limit (page 21, lines 5-16). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao598 and Eriksson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform predictive QoS monitoring and provide information regarding a QoS change to the UE (see page 3, lines 1-2 of Eriksson).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Yao598 and Eriksson further discloses wherein the sending, by the first device, the energy saving analysis result includes sending a first recommendation for an energy saving issue of the network and second information corresponding to the first recommendation (Yao598 at paragraph 0036 – the analytics report of MDA assisted energy saving comprises energy saving instruction identifier, and the energy saving instruction (e.g., recommended candidate cells to enter energy saving state or with precedence to take over traffic from the energy saving cell, energy saving instructions for UPFs), the second information includes at least one of energy saving effect prediction information and a key performance index change range (Eriksson at page 21, lines 18-21 - any node of the wireless network may send a QoS prediction or trigger message to SMF 140 informing about the threshold(s) crossed and the time when the potential change(s) in QoS may happen or that no threshold is crossed), and the first recommendation is an energy saving recommendation corresponding to the energy saving issue (Yao598 at paragraph 0036 – the analytics report of MDA assisted energy saving comprises energy saving instruction identifier, and the energy saving instruction (e.g., recommended candidate cells to enter energy saving state or with precedence to take over traffic from the energy saving cell, energy saving instructions for UPFs); and the method further comprises:
determining, by the first device, the first recommendation based on the energy saving target and the key performance index impact (Yao598 at paragraph 0036 – the analytics report of MDA assisted energy saving comprises energy saving instruction identifier, and the energy saving instruction (e.g., recommended candidate cells to enter energy saving state or with precedence to take over traffic from the energy saving cell, energy saving instructions for UPFs; Eriksson at page 21, lines 18-21 - any node of the wireless network may send a QoS prediction or trigger message to SMF 140 informing about the threshold(s) crossed and the time when the potential change(s) in QoS may happen or that no threshold is crossed); and
determining, by the first device, the second information based on the first recommendation, the energy saving target, and the key performance index impact (Eriksson at page 21, lines 5-16 - discloses an NWDAF receiving KPIs and thresholds of interest received from a user during PDU Session establishment, and checking whether the statistics of QoS KPIs information is below any of the threshold(s) provided by the user for a given amount of time, compared to the QoS KPI that the user has negotiated for the ongoing PDU Session. NWDAF 150 may also check if the difference between the expected and the predicted QoS KPI is higher than a predefined threshold limit).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine further combine Yao598 and Eriksson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform predictive QoS monitoring and provide information regarding a QoS change to the UE (see page 3, lines 1-2 of Eriksson).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Yao598 and Eriksson further discloses:
receiving, by the first device, third information from the second device, wherein the third information is usable to indicate at least one of an energy saving analysis area, an energy saving analysis period (Yao598 at paragraph 0035 – the data required for the MDA energy saving issue includes performance measurements over a specified measurement period, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), an energy saving analysis result report period, an energy saving RAT, and an energy saving analysis domain;
wherein the determining, by the first device, the first recommendation based on the energy saving target and the key performance index impact includes: determining, by the first device, the first recommendation based on the energy saving target, the key performance index impact, and the third information (Yao598 at paragraphs 0035-0036 – the analytics report of MDA, based on the received measurements, comprises energy saving instruction identifier, and the energy saving instruction (e.g., recommended candidate cells to enter energy saving state or with precedence to take over traffic from the energy saving cell, energy saving instructions for UPFs; Eriksson at page 21, lines 18-21 - any node of the wireless network may send a QoS prediction or trigger message to SMF 140 informing about the threshold(s) crossed and the time when the potential change(s) in QoS may happen or that no threshold is crossed). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine further combine Yao598 and Eriksson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform predictive QoS monitoring and provide information regarding a QoS change to the UE (see page 3, lines 1-2 of Eriksson).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Yao598 and Eriksson further discloses wherein the receiving the energy saving analysis result includes receiving a first recommendation for an energy saving issue of the network and second information corresponding to the first recommendation (Yao598 at paragraph 0036 – the analytics report of MDA assisted energy saving comprises energy saving instruction identifier, and the energy saving instruction (e.g., recommended candidate cells to enter energy saving state or with precedence to take over traffic from the energy saving cell, energy saving instructions for UPFs), the second information includes at least one of energy saving effect prediction information and a key performance index change range (Eriksson at page 21, lines 18-21 - any node of the wireless network may send a QoS prediction or trigger message to SMF 140 informing about the threshold(s) crossed and the time when the potential change(s) in QoS may happen or that no threshold is crossed), and the first recommendation is an energy saving recommendation corresponding to the energy saving issue (Yao598 at paragraph 0036 – the analytics report of MDA assisted energy saving comprises energy saving instruction identifier, and the energy saving instruction (e.g., recommended candidate cells to enter energy saving state or with precedence to take over traffic from the energy saving cell, energy saving instructions for UPFs). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine further combine Yao598 and Eriksson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform predictive QoS monitoring and provide information regarding a QoS change to the UE (see page 3, lines 1-2 of Eriksson).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Yao598 and Eriksson further discloses sending, by the second device, third information to the first device, wherein the third information and the first information are usable to determine the first recommendation for the energy saving issue of the network, and the third information is usable to indicate at least one of an energy saving analysis area, an energy saving analysis period (Yao598 at paragraph 0035 – the data required for the MDA energy saving issue includes performance measurements over a specified measurement period, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), an energy saving analysis result report period, an energy saving RAT, and an energy saving analysis domain.
Claims 5, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Eriksson, as applied to claims 3, 9, 13 and 19 above, and further in view of Yao et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0021494), hereinafter Yao494.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Yao598 and Eriksson discloses the limitations of Claims 3 and 13, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose wherein the determining, by the first device, the second information based on the first recommendation, the energy saving target, and the key performance index impact includes: sending, by the first device, the first recommendation, the energy saving target, and the key performance index impact to a third device, wherein the first recommendation, the energy saving target, and the key performance index impact are usable to determine the second information; and receiving, by the first device, the second information from the third device. In an analogous art, Yao 494 discloses this. Specifically, Yao 494 discloses, at Figure 4 and paragraph 0048, that the NWDAF (i.e., a third device separate from the MDAS) may consume the MDAS for identified scenarios and provide analytics service for 5GC NF for control purpose. In light of this disclosure, the Office submits that it would have been obvious for the MDAS producer to provide information to the NWDAF for network analytics and control. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao598 / Eriksson with Yao494. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform network predictions and inform appropriate entities of relevant measures (see paragraphs 0044-0045 of Yao 494).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, he combination of Yao598 and Eriksson discloses the limitations of Claims 9 and 19, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose sending, by the second device, a first indication to the first device, wherein the first indication is usable to indicate that a third device determines the second information. In an analogous art, Yao 494 discloses this. Specifically, Yao 494 discloses, at Figure 4 and paragraph 0048, that the NWDAF (i.e., a third device separate from the MDAS) may consume the MDAS for identified scenarios and provide analytics service for 5GC NF for control purpose. In light of this disclosure, the Office submits that it would have been obvious for the MDAS producer to provide information to the NWDAF for network analytics and control. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao598 / Eriksson with Yao494. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform network predictions and inform appropriate entities of relevant measures (see paragraphs 0044-0045 of Yao 494).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PATEROMICHELAKIS et al (“End-to-End Data Analytics Framework for 5G Architecture”) discloses the management data analytic service (MDAS) should utilize the network management data collected from the network (including e.g., service, slicing and/or NFs related data) and make the corresponding analytics based on the collected information to improve networks slice configuration and optimization. For example, the information provided by performance MDASs can be used to optimize network performance, and the information provided by fault MDASs can be used to predict and prevent failures at network slice level.
3GPP TR 28.809 V17.0.0 discloses MDA for energy saving scenarios (refer to Clause 6.6).
3GPP TR 28.813 V0.5.0 discloses analysis for energy efficiency KPIs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472