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
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 05/22/2024.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 10-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Venkata et al. (US 2023/0308367 A1) in view of Sonnblick et al. (US 2025/0193135 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Venkata discloses a computer-implemented method for programmable network development, comprising: receiving, via a [messaging] user interface (UI), a request from a user for a radio access network (RAN), the request including a first description of a set of requirements for the RAN (fig.1; [0031]; a messaging service is deployed for user to make a request for ordering a MEC application that includes RAN in user specified requirements);
generating a set of constraints for network hardware of the RAN based on the request (fig.4; [0014]; a solution blueprint is generated based on user requirements/constraints);
providing, via the [messaging] UI, a second description of the set of constraints to the user (fig.4; [0053]; the generated solution blueprint is provided to the user);
generating, based on an approval of the set of constraints from the user, a solution to a deployment for the network hardware of the RAN according to the set of constraints ([0053]; the approved solution blueprint is deployed); and
outputting a third description of the solution including attributes of the solution (fig.5; attributes of the solution such as ID, resources and network path are outputted as blueprint records). Venkata does not expressly disclose the messaging user interface is a conversational user interface.
In the same field of endeavor, Sonnblick discloses a conversational user interface ([0009], an agent based chatbot interface is described).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Venkata and Sonnblick before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the AI assisted network deployment interface taught by Venkata to include the above limitation taught by Sonnblick with the motivation being to provide user assistance using AI chatbots.
As to claim 2, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the request comprises a natural language conversation between the user and a chatbot via the conversational UI, wherein the chatbot is powered by an artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) model and the first and second descriptions are in natural language (Sonnblick, [0009]; an LLM AI chatbot is provided).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the set of constraints and the solution are provided to the user in a form of a natural language response to the request via the conversational UI, the natural language response formulated by an LLM (Venkata, [0076], Sonnblick, [0009]; responses are formulated and presented in a form of natural language).
As to claim 9, the prior art as combined discloses the set of constraints are translated into code or configuration file executable by the network hardware of the RAN ([0014]; the orchestration system determines a solution blueprint by considering constraints, the blueprint may specify the deployment and configuration of the MEC).
As to claim 10, the prior art as combined discloses generating a test plan based on the set of constraints ([0046]; an initial blueprint is generated);
receiving, via the conversational UI (Sonnblick, [0009]), a modification to the request from the user based on an execution of the test plan, wherein the modification is to at least one requirement in the set of requirements (Venkata, [0053]; user can modify the initial blueprint);
updating the set of constraints based on the modification; and generating the solution for the deployment based on an updated set of constraints (Venkata, [0053]; the initial blueprint is user modified and updated).
As to claim 11, the prior art as combined discloses analyzing the set of constraints; generating, based on the analyzing, characteristics of the request; and providing the characteristics to the user via the conversational UI (Venkata, fig.4; [0031]; Sonnblick, [0009]; a solution blueprint is generated based on user constraints).
As to claim 12, the prior art as combined discloses generating the deployment based on the set of constraints; and providing, to the user via the conversational UI, feedback regarding the deployment in the third description (Venkata, [0031], [0053]; Sonnblick, [0009]; a solution blueprint is generated based on user constraints, modifications can be made by the user before user approval).
INDEPENDENT claim 13 is a system variation of claim 1, claim 13 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 1.
Claim 14 is a system variation of claim 2, claim 14 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 2.
Claim 19 is a system variation of claim 7, claim 19 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 7.
INDEPENDENT claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variation of claim 1, claim 20 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Venkata- Sonnblick in view of Lyengar et al. (US 2025/0328554 A1).
As to claim 8, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose identifying an existing solution with constraints matching at least a minimum threshold percentage of the set of requirements specified in the request; and providing, via the conversational UI, the existing solution to the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Lyengar discloses identifying an existing solution with constraints matching at least a minimum threshold percentage of the set of requirements specified in the request; and providing, via the conversational UI, the existing solution to the user ([0036]; existing constraint-solution pairs are searched first, wherein pairs are above a similarity threshold are presented).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Lyengar before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the AI assisted network deployment interface taught by the prior art as combined to include the above limitation taught by Lyengar with the motivation being to reduce computational overhead by searching cached queries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179