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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references fail to teach the following limitation:
“simulating network feedback for at least one communication channel, “ and “injecting the simulated network feedback into at least one decision-making process”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The closest specification disclosure on defining simulating network feedback is in paragraph 0047: “where a set of instructions configure to simulate network feedback and to inject simulation results into the decision -making process”
The broadest interpretation the term “simulating” is to “to give or assume the appearance or effect of often when the intent to deceive”
The “network feedback” in paragraph 0033 of instant specification, includes network parameters (e.g., latency, jitter, packet loss).
Campbell, in analogous art, teaches the UE device performs performance tests e.g., network latency tests, processing metric tests, Col 17, Lines 40-45 (e.g., simulating) and produce the test performance datasets/what performance maybe expected (set of instruction configure to simulate, performance datasets/network feedback, refer to Col 15, Lines 55-67 – Col 16, Lines 10-25, Col 17, Lines 1-5, Col 18, Lines 20-33). Campbell’s performance test datasets result (simulating network feedback) for the medium to convey a message from sender to a receiver (e.g., for at least one communication channel, Col 18, Lines 25-33).Therefore, Campbell discloses at least “simulating network feedback for at least one communication channel”
Cambell further discloses the limitation of “injected the simulated network feedback into at least one decision making process.”
Cambell teaches after obtain the test result/performance datasets (simulating the network feedback), Cambell’s orchestration system integrated the performance datasets to the geolocation indexed performance metrics, refer to Col 27, Lines 10-15 (injected the simulated network feedback into at least one decision making process), where the indexed performance metrics are further feed into machine learning technology to conduct further processing (refer to Col 25, Lines 1-20).
Samadi, in analogous art, is introduce to further expedite the prosecution by demonstrate it is well known in the art to provide the feedback into decision-making process (refer to par 0138, 0151) such that the first model simulate the network feedback and the result is feed into additional model to obtain the result over time (refer to par 01378).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al hereinafter Campbell (US 10,778,755) in view of Samadi (US 2021/0344582).
Referring to Claim 1. Campbell discloses a method for network feedback simulation injection (to conduct performance test, refer to abstract, network latency tests, processing metric tests, Col 17, Lines 40-45), comprising: simulating network feedback for at least one communication channel (produce the test performance datasets/what performance maybe expected , refer to Fig 4, and Col 8, Lines 30-65 and Col 14, Lines 30- Col 15, Lines 10, 55- Col 16, Lines 65 and Col 17, Lines 1-16, set of instruction configure to simulate, performance datasets/network feedback ), wherein the simulated network feedback includes at least one simulated network parameter (gathered data/performance , refer to Col 17, Lines 1-5), each simulated network parameter indicating at least one value of a corresponding network performance metric (refer to Col 6 Lines 20-25, Col 10, Lines 40-55, Col 25, Lines 1-5, Col 17, Lines 40-50); and injecting the simulated network feedback into at least one decision-making process, wherein each decision-making process is configured to determine decisions based on network feedback data (refer to Col 21, Lines 45- Col 22, Lines 5, Col 25, Lines 1-20, Col 27, Lines 10-15).
Samadi, in analogous art, is introduce to further expedite the prosecution by demonstrate it is well known in the art to simulate network feedback and provide the feedback into decision-making process (refer to par 0138, 0151)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cambell with Samadi because Samadi’s teaching would allow the system of Cambell to improve system performance without delay.
Referring to Claim 2. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses wherein each decision-making process is configured to determine decisions for a first system based on the network feedback data, wherein the simulated network feedback is based on a simulation of network performance for network communications between the first system and a second system (refer to Col 16, Lines 40- Col 17, Lines 15).
Referring to Claim 3. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 2, Campbell discloses detecting a simulation trigger including transmission of data from the first system to the second system, wherein the simulation is initiated when the simulation trigger is detected (refer to Col 3, Lines 3-5).
Referring to Claim 4. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 2, Campbell discloses wherein the simulated network feedback is a first set of network feedback, wherein the first system receives a second set of network feedback from the second system, wherein the first set of network feedback is utilized by the at least one decision-making process until the second set of network feedback is received by the first system (refer to Col 16, Lines 40- Col 17, Lines 15, Col 26, Lines 15-25).
Referring to Claim 5. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 4, Campbell discloses injecting the second set of network feedback into the at least one decision-making process (refer to Col 21, Lines 10-15).
Referring to Claim 6. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising: Campbell discloses detecting a simulation trigger based on passage of a predetermined amount of time since a most recent receipt of network feedback, wherein the simulation is initiated when the simulation trigger is detected (refer to Col 13, Lines 60-67).
Referring to Claim 7. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses wherein the simulated network feedback further includes simulated content of the simulated network feedback (refer to Col 8, Lines 10-31, Col 7, Lines 20-28, Col 14, Lines 5-10).
Referring to Claim 8. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses wherein the simulated network feedback further includes a simulated timing for the simulated network feedback (refer to Col 6, Lines 1--12).
Referring to Claim 9. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses wherein the at least one simulated network parameter is at least a portion of at least one network feedback aspect to be simulated, further comprising: determining the at least one network feedback aspect to be simulated based on historical network feedback (also based on historical data, refer to Col 8, Lines 10-31, Col 14, Lines 5-10), wherein the at least one simulated network parameter is at least one type of network parameter which is represented in the historical network feedback (refer to Col 8, Lines 20-31).
Referring to Claim 10. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 9, further comprising: Campbell discloses determining the at least one network feedback aspect to be simulated based further on a decision-making process type for each of the at least one decision-making process (refer to Col 10, Lines 10-15, 40-61 and refer to Col 21, Lines 45- Col 22, Lines 5, Col 25, Lines 1-20).
Referring to Claim 11. | Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 9, further comprising: Campbell discloses establishing at least one simulation parameter based on the determined at least one network feedback aspect to be simulated, wherein establishing the at least one simulation parameter further comprises applying a simulation establishment machine learning model to features extracted from data transmitted by a system (refer to Col 21, Lines 45- Col 22, Lines 5, Col 25, Lines 1-20).
Referring to Claim 12. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 11, Campbell discloses wherein simulating the network feedback further comprises:
applying at least one simulator machine learning model to the established at least one simulation parameter, wherein the simulated network feedback is based further on outputs of the at least one simulator machine learning model (refer to Col 21, Lines 15-30, Col 25, Lines 1-20).
Referring to Claim 13. | Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses wherein the at least one communication channel is a plurality of communication channels, wherein simulating the network feedback further comprises:
running a simulation for each of the plurality of communication channels, wherein the simulated network feedback is based on simulation results for the simulation of each of the plurality of communication channels (refer to Col 8, Lines 45-60).
Referring to Claim 14. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses wherein the at least one simulated network parameter includes at least one of latency, jitter, and packet loss (refer Fig 8 and Col 2, Lines 45-55, Col 3, Lines 4-11which the performance metric includes the latency, and performance related data, Col 5, Lines 60-67).
Referring to Claim 15. | Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 1, Campbell discloses determining, using the at least one decision-making process, the decisions for a system based on the simulated network feedback (refer to Fig 9, steps 904 and 909); and controlling the system based on the determined decisions (refer to Col 4, Lines 40-50).
Referring to Claim 16. Cambell with Samadi disclosed the method of claim 15, Campbell discloses wherein the system is a vehicle, wherein the determined decisions include driving decisions for the vehicle, wherein controlling the system further comprises driving the vehicle based on the driving decisions (refer to Col 14, Lines 20-45, and Col 4 Lines 40-50).
Referring to Claims 17-33, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447