DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, filed on June 16, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 8-9 and 14 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 8-9 and 14 have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant's arguments regarding rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 16
Regarding claims 1 and 16, as amended, applicant argues claims 1 and 16 are in condition for allowance, because applied references Mattsson ‘667 (US 2017/0118667, “Mattsson ‘667”) and Xie ‘605 (US 2020/0036605, “Xie ‘605”) do not disclose “determining a reliability of the received first value using a performance indicator profile” and “performing an action with respect to the received request based on the determined reliability of the received first value” (See Remarks, page 8, para 6, page 9, para 4).
First, applicant argues that Xie ‘605 discloses KPI data that is used as evidence of network-element health, rather than evaluating whether a first value received from a communication network is reliable for purposes of performing an action with respect to a third-party request, and disclosing “a reliability of the received first value using a performance indicator profile” (See Remarks, page 8, para 8, page 9, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Xie ‘605 discloses determining sampled data of a target key performance Indicator (KPI), obtaining a fluctuation score of the target KPI of the target network element according to the sampled data of the target KPI, determining a reliability score of the target KPI based on the fluctuation score of the target KPI, and determining a health status of the target network element based on the reliability score of the KPI (FIG. 2, para 7, 73, 75, 88, and 90). Thus, Xie ‘605 discloses determining the reliability score of the received sampled values of the target key performance indicator using the fluctuation score of the target key performance indicator. Therefore, with the fluctuation score of the target key performance indicator reading on a performance indicator profile, Xie ‘605 discloses “determining a reliability of the received first value using a performance indicator profile”.
Second, applicant argues that Xie ‘605 discloses the fluctuation score that is a calculated output derived from sampled KPI data and a steady-state value, rather than the fluctuation score that is a performance-indicator value used as a profile to determine reliability of a received performance-indicator value (See Remarks, page 9, para 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Xie ‘605 discloses determining sampled data of a target key performance Indicator (KPI), obtaining a fluctuation score of the target KPI of the target network element according to the sampled data of the target KPI, determining a reliability score of the target KPI based on the fluctuation score of the target KPI, and determining a health status of the target network element based on the reliability score of the KPI (FIG. 2, para 7, 73, 75, 88, and 90). Thus, Xie ‘605 discloses determining the reliability score of the received sampled values of the target KPI using the fluctuation score of the target key performance indicator. Further, examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, examiner interprets “the fluctuation score of the target key performance indicator” as a performance indicator profile. Therefore, Xie ‘605 discloses “determining a reliability of the received first value using a performance indicator profile”.
Third, applicant argues that Mattsson ‘667 discloses a monitoring request that occurs before any received first value and before any reliability determination, rather than disclosing the monitoring request that is based on determined reliability of the received first value (See Remarks, page 9, para 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Mattsson ‘667 discloses that the SCEF sends a monitoring request to the HSS upon receiving the request from the TPS (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 7, 34-40, and 56-61). Thus, Mattsson ‘667 discloses performing an action of sending the monitoring request to the HSS with respect to the request received from the TPS. Therefore, Mattsson ‘667 discloses “performing an action with respect to the received request.” Further, Xie ‘605 discloses “performing an action based on the determined reliability of the received first value” (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines that the network element’s health status is a fault state, based on the determined reliability of the KPI, and prompts a fault alarm; the fault alarm reads on an action). Therefore, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses “performing an action with respect to the received request based on the determined reliability of the received first value”.
Fourth, applicant argues that the combination of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605 does not teach an action that is performed with respect to the received request and based on the determined reliability of the received first value, because Xie ‘605 discloses a fault alarm that is an internal health-status response, rather than an action with respect to Mattsson ‘667‘s third-party request (See Remarks, page 9, para 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Xie ‘605 discloses that the detection device determines that the network element’s health status is a fault state, based on the determined reliability of the KPI, and prompts a fault alarm (FIG. 2, para 7, 73, 75, 88-90). Thus, with prompting a fault alarm reading on performing an action, Xie ‘605 discloses “performing an action based on the determined reliability of the received first value”. Further, Mattsson ‘667 discloses “performing an action with respect to the received request” (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 7, 34-40, and 56-61; upon receiving the request from the TPS, the SCEF sends a monitoring request to the HSS). Therefore, the combination of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605 discloses “performing an action with respect to the received request based on the determined reliability of the received first value”.
B. § 103 rejection of claims 2-14 and 17-21
Regarding claims 2-14 and 17-21, applicant argues the claims are allowable by virtue of their dependencies from amended claims 1 and 16. Relevant limitations claimed in amended claims 1 and 16 are discussed above. Applicant does not present arguments regarding additional limitations claimed in dependent claims 2-14 and 17-21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, 10-11, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattsson ‘667 (US 2017/0118667, “Mattsson ‘667”), in view of Xie ‘605 (US 2020/0036605, “Xie ‘605”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Mattsson ‘667 discloses a control node (FIG. 1, para 5-7 and 34; service capability exposure function (SCEF) is a function for receiving a monitoring service report, where the SCEF is implemented in a second public land mobile network (PLMN) 101; SCEF reads on a control node):
receive, from a third party node, a request for a value of a first performance indicator relating to one or more subscribers or to a first network slice (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 34-40, and 56-61; SCEF receives from a third-party server (TPS) a request for event monitoring and reporting, where the event is the location of a user equipment (UE); TPS reads on a third party node; UE reads on one or more subscribers; the location of the UE reads on a first performance indicator relating to one or more subscribers; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
receive, from a first communication network, a first value of the first performance indicator relating to the one or more subscribers in the first communication network or to the first network slice in the first communication network (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 7, 34-40, and 56-61; upon receiving the request from the TPS, the SCEF sends a monitoring request to a home subscriber server (HSS); the HSS sends a submit request to an aggregator proxy function (APF) in a first PLMN 102, where the submit request includes information about the event to be monitored; the APF sends a submit request to monitoring nodes in the first PLMN 102, and receives event reports from the monitoring nodes; the APF aggregates event reports, and sends the aggregated report to the SCEF; thus, SCEF receives from the first PLMN an aggregated report containing values for the monitored UE’s location; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art); and
perform an action with respect to the received request (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 7, 34-40, and 56-61; upon receiving the request from the TPS, the SCEF sends a monitoring request to the HSS).
However, Mattsson ‘667 does not specifically disclose a control node comprising: processing circuitry; memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the control node to perform operations comprising: determine a reliability of the received first value using a performance indicator profile. Further, although Mattsson ‘667 discloses perform an action with respect to the received request, Mattsson ‘667 does not specifically disclose perform an action based on the determined reliability of the received first value.
Xie ‘605 teaches a control node comprising: processing circuitry; memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the control node to perform operations (FIGS. 1 and 6, para 65-66 and 148-149; a detection device includes a processor, where the processor executes instructions stored in a memory) comprising:
determine a reliability of the received first value using a performance indicator profile (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; a detection device receives periodically sampled data of a key performance indicator (KPI) for a network element; the detection device obtains a fluctuation score of the KPI according to the sampled data for a time window, and determines a reliability score of the KPI based on the fluctuation score; the detection device determines the health status of the network element based on the reliability score of the KPI; thus, the detection device determines a reliability of the received KPI data based on the fluctuation score, where the fluctuation score is based on sampled data for the time window; the fluctuation score reads on a performance indicator profile); and
perform an action based on the determined reliability of the received first value (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines that the network element’s health status is a fault state, based on the determined reliability of the KPI, and prompts a fault alarm; the fault alarm reads on an action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mattsson ‘667’s control node that determines reliability of a received value using a performance indicator profile, to include Xie ‘605’s received KPI data reliability that is based on a fluctuation score. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xie ‘605 teaches wherein there is a respective performance indicator profile relating to each subscriber (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines a reliability score of the KPI for the network element, based on the fluctuation score of the KPI; thus, the fluctuation score is relating to the network element; the network element reads on subscriber; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art),
to respective groups of subscribers, and/or
to respective network slices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s received KPI data reliability that is based on a fluctuation score. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Mattsson ‘667 teaches the one or more subscribers or the first network slice indicated in the request (para 34-36; SCEF receives from the TPS a request for event monitoring and reporting, where the event is the location of a wireless communication device (WCD) that is a user equipment (UE); the request includes a WCD identifier that identifies the WCD; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Furthermore, Xie ‘605 teaches wherein the control node is configured to determine the reliability using one or more performance indicator profiles relating to the one or more subscribers (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines a reliability score of the KPI for the network element, based on the fluctuation score of the KPI; thus, the fluctuation score is relating to the network element; the network element reads on one or more subscribers; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art) or the first network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s received KPI data reliability that is based on a fluctuation score. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xie ‘605 teaches wherein the performance indicator profile comprises information indicating typical values, or typical ranges of values, of the first performance indicator for the one or more subscribers (para 75-78; the fluctuation score represents a degree of deviation of the network element’s KPI from the KPI steady state; thus, the fluctuation score indicates typical ranges of values of the network element’s KPI; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art) or for the first network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s fluctuation score that represents a degree of deviation of KPI from the KPI steady state. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xie ‘605 teaches wherein the performance indicator profile further comprises information indicating typical values, or typical ranges of values, of one or more further performance indicators for the one or more subscribers (para 75-78; the fluctuation score represents a degree of deviation of the network element’s KPI from the KPI steady state; thus, the fluctuation score indicates typical ranges of values of the network element’s KPI; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art) or the first network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s fluctuation score that represents a degree of deviation of KPI from the KPI steady state. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Mattsson ‘667 teaches wherein the control node is further configured to:
receive, from a second communication network (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 7, 34-40, and 56-61; SCEF sends a monitor request to the HSS, and receives a response from the HSS; SCEF and HSS are part of the second PLMN 101; thus, SCEF receives from the second PLMN); and
wherein the control node is configured to perform a respective action with respect to the received request (FIGS. 1-3, para 5, 7, 34-40, and 56-61; upon receiving the request from the TPS, the SCEF sends a monitoring request to the HSS).
Furthermore, Xie ‘605 teaches receive a second value of the first performance indicator relating to the one or more subscribers in the second communication network or to the first network slice in the second communication network; wherein the control node is configured to determine the reliability of the second value received from the second communication network using the performance indicator profile (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device receives periodically sampled data of the network element’s KPI; the detection device obtains the fluctuation score of the KPI and determines the reliability score of the KPI based on the fluctuation score; thus, the detection device receives multiple sample values of the KPI, and determines the reliability of the values of the KPI; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art); and
wherein the control node is configured to perform a respective action based on the determined reliabilities of the received values (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines that the network element’s health status is a fault state, based on the determined reliability of the KPI, and prompts a fault alarm; the fault alarm reads on an action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s received KPI data reliability that is based on a fluctuation score. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claim 10, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Xie ‘605 teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining the performance indicator profile for the one or more subscribers (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines the fluctuation score of the network element’s KPI; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art) or the first network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s received KPI data reliability that is based on a determined fluctuation score. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
Regarding claim 11, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
Further, Xie ‘605 teaches wherein the step of determining the performance indicator profile comprises determining the performance indicator profile based on previous values of the first performance indicator for the one or more subscribers (FIGS. 1-2, para 7, 65-78, and 88-90; the detection device determines the fluctuation score of the network element’s KPI according to the sampled KPI data for a time window; thus, the detection device determines the fluctuation score based on previous values of the network element’s KPI; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art) or the first network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to further include Xie ‘605’s received KPI data reliability that is based on a determined fluctuation score. The motivation for doing so would have been to resolve a problem that it is inaccurate to determine a network element health status by considering only single-point moment performance data of a network element and a baseline threshold (Xie ‘605, para 6).
6. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattsson ‘667, in view of Xie ‘605, and further in view of Gulati ‘252 (US 2024/0049252, “Gulati ‘252”).
Regarding claim 7, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
However, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 does not specifically disclose wherein the first communication network and the second communication network are operated by different communication network operators.
Gulati ‘252 teaches wherein the first communication network and the second communication network are operated by different communication network operators (FIG. 5A, para 72-73; two networks with two different operators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to include Gulati ‘252’s two networks with two different operators. The motivation for doing so would have been to overcome challenges in wireless communication systems, including performing cross-link interference (CLI) measurements (Gulati ‘252, para 3).
7. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattsson ‘667, in view of Xie ‘605, and further in view of Bao ‘480 (US 2024/0302480, “Bao ‘480”).
Regarding claim 8, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 does not specifically disclose wherein the action to perform comprises sending the received first value of the first performance indicator to the third party node in response to the first value being determined to be reliable.
Bao ‘480 teaches wherein the action to perform comprises sending the received first value of the first performance indicator to the third party node in response to the first value being determined to be reliable (para 4 and 179; a first UE receives position measurement information from a second UE, for sending the received position measurement information to a network entity; the received position measurement information is sent if it is determined to be reliable, and discarded if it is determined to be unreliable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to include Bao ‘480’s received position measurement information that is sent if it is determined to be reliable. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance signaling efficiency and reduce latency (Bao ‘480, para 3).
Regarding claim 9, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 does not specifically disclose wherein the action to perform comprises one or more of: (i) sending the received first value of the first performance indicator to the third party node with a confidence indicator representing the reliability of the received first value; (ii) not sending the received first value of the first performance indicator in response to the received first value of the first performance indicator being determined to be unreliable; (iii) sending a notification to the first communication network in response to the first value of the first performance indicator being determined to be unreliable, the notification indicating that the received first value is unreliable.
Bao ‘480 teaches wherein the action to perform comprises one or more of:
(i) sending the received first value of the first performance indicator to the third party node with a confidence indicator representing the reliability of the received first value;
(ii) not sending the received first value of the first performance indicator in response to the received first value of the first performance indicator being determined to be unreliable (para 4 and 179; a first UE receives position measurement information from a second UE, for sending the received position measurement information to a network entity; the received position measurement information is sent if it is determined to be reliable, and discarded if it is determined to be unreliable; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
(iii) sending a notification to the first communication network in response to the first value of the first performance indicator being determined to be unreliable, the notification indicating that the received first value is unreliable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to include Bao ‘480’s received position measurement information that is discarded if it is determined to be unreliable. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance signaling efficiency and reduce latency (Bao ‘480, para 3).
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattsson ‘667, in view of Xie ‘605, and further in view of Gautam ‘502 (US 2023/0262502, “Gautam ‘502”).
Regarding claim 12, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
However, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 does not specifically disclose wherein the step of determining the performance indicator profile comprises training a machine learning model, MLM, to output a reliability indicator for a value of the first performance indicator that is input to the trained MLM, wherein the MLM is trained using the previous values of the first performance indicator for the one or more subscribers or the first network slice.
Gautam ‘502 teaches wherein the step of determining the performance indicator profile comprises training a machine learning model, MLM, to output a reliability indicator for a value of the first performance indicator that is input to the trained MLM, wherein the MLM is trained using the previous values of the first performance indicator for the one or more subscribers or the first network slice (para 7-15 and 70; current values of performance measurements and a history, i.e., previously collected performance measurements, are inputs into an artificial intelligence (AI) model; the performance measurements include current throughput per network slice; the AI model generates a Slice Traffic Analytics Report (STAR), where the STAR includes projected values of the throughput per slice; thus, the AI model outputs projected values of performance measurements; therefore, the AI model outputs indication of reliability of the current performance measurements to use in throughput prediction; further, the AI model uses previously collected performance measurements, and the performance measurements are throughput measurements per network slice; the AI model reads on a MLM; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667 and Xie ‘605, to include Gautam ‘502’s AI model that outputs projected values of performance measurements. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a need for requirements in a GSMA generic slice template (GST) to be divided among all targeted network function (NF) instances based on traffic analysis (Gautam ‘502, para 2-5).
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattsson ‘667, in view of Xie ‘605, further in view of Gautam ‘502, and further in view of Gandikota ‘478 (US 2024/0155478, “Gandikota ‘478”).
Regarding claim 13, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 and Gautam ‘502 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 12, as outlined above.
However, Mattsson ‘667 in combination with Xie ‘605 and Gautam ‘502 does not specifically disclose wherein the MLM is trained using reinforcement learning techniques.
Gandikota ‘478 teaches wherein the MLM is trained using reinforcement learning techniques (para 51; a machine learning model is trained using a reinforcement learning technique).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined control node of Mattsson ‘667, Xie ‘605, and Gautam ‘502, to include Gandikota ‘478’s machine learning model that is trained using a reinforcement learning technique. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize network resources efficiently when a UE establishes and utilizes protocol data unit (PDU) sessions of applications, based on associations defined at network end (Gandikota ‘478, para 4-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.0.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights