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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20, 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 20, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 28.312 v0.5.0 (2021-05) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; Intent driven management services for mobile networks (Release 17) in further view of Szilagyi, Peter. “I2BN: Intelligent Intent Based Networks.” Journal of ICT Standardization, vol. 9, no. 2, 2021, pp. 159-200. River Publishers <https://doi.org/10.13052/jicts2245-800x.926>; Kashif Mehmood et al. “Intent-based Network Management and Orchestration for Smart Distribution Grids.” arXiv, 12 May 2021, arXiv:2105.05594v1; Morimoto (US-20170310597).
As to claim 20, 26: 3GPP teaches a method performed by a communication device in a communication network for managing an intent specification to a network node, … , the method comprising: signaling an intent specification to the network node (section 4.2.1 The consumer states the intent to be fulfilled and the producer receives and acknowledges the receipt of the intent; section 5.1.2.1.1 MnS producer continuously monitors the coverage performance (e.g. weak coverage ratio, average RSRP) for the specified area, and decides whether coverage targets described in the intent is satisfied), the intent specification comprising an identification of at least one of a goal, a requirement, OR a constraint that the communication device expects to be fulfilled in the communication network (section 3.1 requirements, goals, constraints; section 4.2 The goal of intent fulfilment is to bring the network or service’s state to satisfy the new or updated intent).
3GPP may not explicitly teach the network node for communicating information among a hierarchy of management systems structured as a plurality of layers including upper layers and a bottom layer for managing the communication network … , wherein the network capability is determined by a model of one of the upper layers. However, Szilagyi teaches the network node for communicating information among a hierarchy of management systems structured as a plurality of layers including upper layers and a bottom layer for managing the communication network (section 2.5 The main architectural components of the system are a set of Intent Managers, which are organized into a hierarchy … Just as intent is decomposed and travels down, measurements and insights are collected and streamed upwards in the hierarchy of IMs) … , wherein the network capability is determined by a model of one of the upper layers (section 2.6 Besides evaluating the system’s intent compliancy, measurements can be used to profile system capabilities. Such profiles may include, e.g., intrinsic limits on U-plane performance, resource capacities, amount of demand to be served within a given quality, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement hierarchical intent managers, taught by Szilagyi, into the communication system, taught by 3GPP, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce complexity and improve automation. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Szilagyi and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
3GPP may not explicitly teach receiving a message from the network node including information relating to a network capability, the network capability corresponding to at least one of a resource, a service, OR a performance of a service that the communication network can fulfill for the intent specification … and using the received network capability to (i) accept the network capability to fulfill the intent specification, OR (ii) generate a new intent specification that has a greater probability of fulfillment by the communication network. However, Kashif teaches receiving a message from the network node including information relating to a network capability, the network capability (section II D The definition of service objectives and profiles requires exposure of network capabilities and SLAs agreed upon between the customer and the service providers; section IV C The observations are dispensed to the intent orchestrator) corresponding to at least one of a resource, a service, OR a performance of a service that the communication network can fulfill for the intent specification (section II B The service profiles are optimized and rigorously evaluated for potential trade-offs and conflicts of interest in a closed-loop system consisting of service, relevant configuration, and performance evaluation as per required resources) … and using the received network capability to (i) accept the network capability to fulfill the intent specification (section IV DA new service slicing profile is generated likewise to accommodate the changing resource and network state in order to ensure the SLAs are satisfied for the users. The service slicing profiles consist of various parameters that are adjusted in order to enable the generated profiles to continuously meet the service requirements for the intent provided by the WAMS users), OR (ii) generate a new intent specification that has a greater probability of fulfillment by the communication network (section IV A A closed-loop optimization is performed with the intent monitor and optimizer module in the grid layer to ensure compliance of user intents with the configured service Distributed generation Distributed storage and network configuration).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement hierarchical abstraction, taught by Mehmood, into the intent driven management service, taught by 3GPP, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable optimization. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine 3GPP and Mehmood in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
3GPP may not explicitly teach the model mapping an updated identification of network capability received from a lower layer beneath the one of the upper layers to the network capability. However, Morimoto teaches the model mapping an updated identification of network capability received from a lower layer beneath the one of the upper layers to the network capability ([0015, 32-35] assigning, as attribute information of a port of an upper layer, label information necessary for using a virtual link provided by a lower layer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement exchange between upper and lower layers, taught by Morimoto, into the communication system, taught by 3GPP, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve coordination and provide for efficient network control. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Morimoto and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP, Szilagyi, Mehmood, Morimoto (US-20170310597) in view of A (US-20200313980).
As to claim 21: 3GPP teaches the method of Claim 20.
3GPP may not explicitly teach further comprising: signaling to the network node the (i) acceptance of the network capability to fulfill the intent specification, or (ii) the generated new intent specification. However, A teaches further comprising: signaling to the network node the (i) acceptance of the network capability to fulfill the intent specification ([0060] Management module 24 may determine whether one or more resources for any of the existing stateful intents of configuration database 40 are degraded), or (ii) the generated new intent specification ([0060] Controller device 10 may then receive one or more new intents from a user).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement acceptance of intent, taught by A, into the intent driven management service, taught by 3GPP, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide services. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine A and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Szilagyi, Mehmood, Morimoto (US-20170310597).
As to claim 23: 3GPP Teaches the method of Claim 20, wherein the model comprises at least one of a machine learning model (section 4.2.2 The intents may be fulfilled by utilizing multiple mechanisms including among others: Rule-based mechanisms, closed loop mechanisms and AI/ML based mechanisms; section 5.1.2.1.1 The Artificial intelligence or machine learning technologies may be used in above workflow to satisfy the intent, for example, online iteration optimization technologies may be used to selecting the best coverage configuration parameters rapidly), a policy, and a set of rules (section 4.4 An intent specifies the expectations including requirements, goals, and constraints for a specific service or network management workflow, while a policy specifies the action(s) to be taken when given condition occurs and rules specifies the explicit or formula logics to be executed).
As to claim 24: 3GPP Teaches the method of Claim 20, wherein the information comprises an indication that the intent specification was successfully fulfilled, the intent specification was not successfully fulfilled, and a measurement of a degree of a fulfillment of the intent specification (6.2.1.4 intentFufilStatus).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP, Szilagyi, Mehmood, Morimoto (US-20170310597) in view of Tammana (US-20180351788).
As to claim 25: 3GPP teaches the method of Claim 24.
3GPP may not explicitly teach wherein the information is a measurement of a degree of the fulfillment of the intent specification, the method further comprising: receiving from the network node, a measure of the likelihood of successful execution of the intent specification. However, Tammana teaches wherein the information is a measurement of a degree of the fulfillment of the intent specification, the method further comprising: receiving from the network node, a measure of the likelihood of successful execution of the intent specification ([0026, 29, 0126]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement likelihood percentage, taught by Tammana, into the intent driven management service, taught by 3GPP, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide services. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tammana and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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 C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights