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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 2 June 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are amended and currently pending.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to at least Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Office notes that Applicant’s amendment to the independent claims and Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 have introduced new issues addressed in the rejection below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the amended claim language now recites (emphasis added by the Office): “wherein the determining, by the MDAS producer based on the energy saving target, the energy saving analysis result corresponding to the energy saving target comprises: in response to the energy saving target being energy consumption reduction, determining the energy saving issue as an issue of high energy consumption; or in response to the energy saving target being energy efficiency improvement, determining the energy saving issue as an issue of low energy efficiency.” This language is not clear as to what is meant by performing the determination “as an issue” of either high energy consumption or low energy efficiency or a relationship between the input of the determination (“high energy consumption” or “low energy efficiency”) and the output (“energy saving issue”). Turning to Applicant’s specification, the Office notes the following portions of paragraph 0167:
“…if the customer's requirement for energy saving analysis is to reduce network energy consumption, the second device may indicate in S101 that the energy saving target is to reduce energy consumption, and correspondingly, the first device may determine the energy saving analysis result with a goal of reducing energy consumption. For example, in this case, the energy saving analysis result can reflect whether an energy saving issue of excessively high energy consumption exists in the network, and if the issue of excessively high energy consumption exists, the energy saving analysis result may further include the first recommendation that can reduce energy consumption.”
This portion of the specification describes what is determined by the device in response to the indicated “energy saving target”, but does not clarify how the energy saving issue is determined “as an issue” or either low energy efficiency or high energy consumption. Therefore, these claims are found to be indefinite. Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 1 and 11. Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein the energy saving analysis result comprises content relating to an energy saving issue, and wherein the energy saving issue comprises an issue of high energy consumption in response to the energy saving target being energy consumption reduction, or an issue of low energy efficiency in response to the energy saving target being energy efficiency improvement.” The relational language in these claims (“content relating to an energy issue”) is found to be indefinite for the same reasons as presented above for Claims 1 and 11. Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 6 and 16.
Further regarding Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17, the claim language has been amended to recite “an acceptable decreasing range of the key performance index”. The Office considers “acceptable” to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While, for example, paragraphs 0144-0145 of the specification describe an acceptable KPI decreasing range, the specification does not further describe how such a range, or the decrease thereof, would be found to be acceptable. Therefore, the claims are found to be indefinite. Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al (“Artificial Intelligence based Architecture and Implementation of Wireless Network”) discloses MDA functions (refer to page 274).
Zhang et al (“Architectures and Use cases of AI-based Network”) discloses MDA functions in 5G networks.
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 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
Prosecution Insights