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
This action is in response to the application filed on 04/19/2024
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR 20210100715, filed on 10/19/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 20210306416 A1), hereinafter Mukhopadhyay.
With regards to Claim 1, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
A method of performing a network function, the method comprising:
receiving a set of parameters for managing at least one digital twin used for testing a new version of a software; (Mukhopadhyay [0006] discloses creating a digital twin using particular server configurations)
receiving a request for the at least one digital twin corresponding to the new version of the software; and (Mukhopadhyay [0023] and [00067] discloses the digital twin being used to test software changes, where the different software changes can be additions, upgrades, version changes and deletions)
transmitting a response comprising the at least one digital twin corresponding to the new version of the software. (Mukhopadhyay [0075] discloses deploying/transmitting the digital twin to create a replication of the IT infrastructure with the software change implemented)
With regards to claim 3, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The method of claim 1 wherein the request for the at least one digital twin comprises the new version of the software for testing, and the response comprising the at least one digital twin is sent to the a testing management service producer. (Mukhopadhyay [0075] discloses that the digital twin with the new version may be generated in a second container, where the changes are recorded between the baseline and modified replications of the IT infrastructures. Changes involving policy is managed through device specify policy management, acting as a testing management service producer as this demonstrates the digital twin with software test being sent to a container, managed, and then subsequently tested).
With regards to claim 5, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 5 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 7, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 7 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 20210306416 A1) hereinafter Mukhopadhyay in view of Jebbar et al. (US 20230082606 A1) hereinafter Jebbar.
Regarding claim 2, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The method of claim 1,
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
wherein the set of parameters comprises information indicating criteria for a successful test of the new version of the software against the at least one digital twin, information indicating criteria for a failed test of the new version of the software against the at least one digital twin, information indicating criteria for an inconclusive test of the software against the at least one digital twin, or a combination thereof.
Jebbar teaches
wherein the set of parameters comprises information indicating criteria for a successful test of the new version of the software against the at least one digital twin, information indicating criteria for a failed test of the new version of the software against the at least one digital twin, information indicating criteria for an inconclusive test of the software against the at least one digital twin, or a combination thereof. (Jebbar [0115] discloses after a testing procedure stops, the verdict of the test is determined as either PASS, FAIL or INCONCLUSIVE and the system takes actions depending on the received verdict of the test).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Jebbar to “wherein the set of parameters comprises information indicating criteria for a successful test of the new version of the software against the at least one digital twin, information indicating criteria for a failed test of the new version of the software against the at least one digital twin, information indicating criteria for an inconclusive test of the software against the at least one digital twin, or a combination thereof” in order to know the results of the digital twin tests and allow user to efficiently manage the system according to the result and effectively manage issues within the system.
With regards to claim 6, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 6 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 20210306416 A1) hereinafter Mukhopadhyay in view of Mehrotra et al. (US 20220100851 A1) hereinafter Mehrotra.
Regarding claim 4, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The method of claim 1,
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
Wherein managing the at least one digital twin comprises creating the at least one digital twin, configuring the at least one digital twin, reading the at least one digital twin, updating the at least one digital twin, deleting the at least one digital twin, or a combination thereof.
Mehrotra teaches
Wherein managing the at least one digital twin comprises creating the at least one digital twin, configuring the at least one digital twin, reading the at least one digital twin, updating the at least one digital twin, deleting the at least one digital twin (Mehrotra [0162] demonstrates deleting the stored code in the digital twin in order to reduce copies of code and security threats), or a combination thereof. (Mehrotra [0136] – [0137] and [0174] discloses creating a digital twin based on updated code model, analyze/read data collected from asset, update corresponding code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues. The digital twins may also be used the simulate the effects of taking certain actions for different assets by adjusting certain operating parameters demonstrating configuring the digital twin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Mehrotra to “Wherein managing the at least one digital twin comprises creating the at least one digital twin, configuring the at least one digital twin, reading the at least one digital twin, updating the at least one digital twin, deleting the at least one digital twin, or a combination thereof” in order to allow the user to have full flexibility of the digital twin and to be able to flexibly test the software under different conditions and analyze the effects.
Claim(s) 8 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 20210306416 A1) hereinafter Mukhopadhyay in view Yuan et al. (US 20240154876 A1) hereinafter Yuan.
Regarding claim 8, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to, (Mukhopadhyay [0051] discloses the digital twin service using various cloud processors)
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
receive a second set of parameters for creating the at least one digital twin of a network; generate the at least one digital twin based on the second set of parameters; and
transmit a second request for network information and a subscription request to subscribe to changes in the network;
receive a second response to the request; wherein the second response comprises the network information and confirmation of the subscription request; and
update the digital twin based on the network information.
Yuan teaches
receive a second set of parameters for creating the at least one digital twin of a network; (Yuan [0040] teaches obtaining digital twin network configuration information, i.e., the parameters for creating the digital twin.)
generate the at least one digital twin based on the second set of parameters; and (Yuan [0041] and [0042] disclose establishing based on the configuration provided a dT-UE context of the digital twin field.)
transmit a second request for network information and a subscription request to subscribe to changes in the network; (Yuan [0148] obtains network configuration information and status information that is of a physical network function. Yuan [0056] – [0058] further discloses sending a subscription request message of the digital twin service.)
receive a second response comprises the network information and confirmation of the subscription request; and (Yuan [0056] – [0058] after subscription request returns back as accepted, the service determines if the subscribed digital twin information is generated and sends subscribed information to the NEF).
update the digital twin based on the network information (Yuan [0148] – [0154] discloses the second execution module obtained the digital twin network configuration information and establishes based on the configuration information a DT-UE context of a digital twin field by interacting with a core network function and performing digital twin configuration update on a DT-RAN function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Yuan to “receive a second set of parameters for creating the at least one digital twin of a network, generate the at least one digital twin based on the second set of parameters, transmit a second request for network information and a subscription request to subscribe to changes in the network, the second response comprises the network information and confirmation of the subscription request, and update the digital twin on the network information” in order for the digital twin to constantly change/update when needed, increasing overall system flexibility.
With regards to claim 9, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The apparatus of claim 8,
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
wherein the second set of parameters comprises: a state of each network function in the network, a level for each network function to be represented, a frequency, a time duration, a time for recorded network events to be saved, external network events, configurations performed by a management plane, visibility information, open standards interconnect level, an application plane, a management plane, a control user plane, a virtualization plane, or a combination thereof.
Yuan teaches
wherein the second set of parameters comprises: a state of each network function in the network, a level for each network function to be represented, a frequency, a time duration, a time for recorded network events to be saved, external network events, configurations performed by a management plane, visibility information, open standards interconnect level, an application plane, a management plane, a control user plane (Yuan [0091] and [0094] demonstrate that the DTCF may be described on the core network control plane and that the DTCF performs configuration on a DT-RAN. The configuration may also include a frequency), a virtualization plane, or a combination thereof. (Yuan [0031] – [0033] discloses that the DT-UE is configured to provide a terminal function related to a digital twin network including, exchanging a control message with a network function, transmitting user plane data, a radio link control and user plane function and a core network control plane i.e., a management control plane. Further, on Yuan [0090], the core network control plane has functions that include at least an NSSF, a NEF, an NRF, a PCF, a UDM, an AF, an NSSAAF, an AUSF, an AMF, an SMF, an SCP, a DTCF, and the like, and information may be exchanged between the network functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Yuan to “wherein the second set of parameters comprises: a state of each network function in the network, a level for each network function to be represented, a frequency, a time duration, a time for recorded network events to be saved, external network events, configurations performed by a management plane, visibility information, open standards interconnect level, an application plane, a management plane, a control user plane, a virtualization plane, or a combination thereof” in order to provide the digital twin the necessary parameters and allowing the digital twin to have better view of different functions and tests being run on the system. This information can greatly help improve managing the system.
With regards to claim 10, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The apparatus of claim 8,
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
wherein the receiver receives data as a third response to the subscription request and the processor updates the digital twin based on the data.
Yuan teaches
wherein the receiver receives data as a third response to the subscription request and the processor updates the digital twin based on the data. (Yuan [0058] and [0059] discloses once the subscription request is accepted, the DTCF needs to monitor whether the subscribed digital twin information is generated and if there corresponding subscription information, send the information to the NEF, i.e., subscription data. Then the digital twin is initiated based on the user authorization information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Yuan to “wherein the receiver receives data as a third response to the subscription request and the processor updates the digital twin based on the data” in order to provide the digital twin with the necessary data once the subscription has occurred to avoid unnecessary data transfer if the system decide not to subscribe, thus improving the digital twin’s data handling processing.
With regards to claim 11, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the receiver receives event configuration information, and the event configuration information indicates a trigger event and an action initiated in response to the trigger event, the trigger event causes a save of the digital twin, and the trigger event comprises a network failure (Mukhopadhyay [0020] – [0022] discloses storing and saving digital twin in the cloud and using digital twins as scripts to automatically be used on different conditions such as a catastrophic event, power outage, or other trigger for backing up the data of the IT infrastructure), a specified change in the network, a rollout of new software, a removal of old software, a configurable notification, a time trigger, a key performance indicator threshold crossing, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 12 -19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 20210306416 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20190391800 A1) hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 12, Mukhopadhyay discloses,
An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: At least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to;
Transmit a request for at least on digital twin corresponding to the new version of the software, wherein the request comprises information indicating the new version of the software, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive a response comprising the at least one digital twin corresponding to the new version of the software.
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly,
Receive a notification of a new version of a software
Lin teaches
Receive a notification of a new version of a software (Lin [0097] and [0139] discloses each mobility client has digital twin with customized extended data field based on what the mobility client has subscribed to. This demonstrates that the mobility client can receive the notification of a new update, request the new version and receive the new version on the digital twin for that mobility client. Further, the mobility client after entering a geofence region, a notification of a pending software update is sent to the mobility client).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Lin to “Receive a notification of a new version of a software and transmit a request for at least on digital twin corresponding to the new version of the software, wherein the request comprises information indicating the new version of the software, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive a response comprising the at least one digital twin corresponding to the new version of the software” in order to efficiently obtain an update as soon as it is available, thus keeping the system at its best performance.
With regards to claim 13, Mukhopadhyay discloses
The apparatus of claim 12
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to test the new version of the software using the at least one digital twin.
Lin teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to test the new version of the software using the at least one digital twin. (Lin [0012] discloses the mobility platform receiving download information file for downloading and installing update files from a data repository. Then, Lin [0021] and [0022] discloses extracting the data from the data repository, splitting the features into training and test data sets, and testing the model using the test data set, then storing the model in the data repository. The model is then applied to the mobility client data, completing the installation order hierarchy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Lin to “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to test the new version of the software using the at least one digital twin” in order to determine whether to implement the new version of the software or not to the main system, avoiding potentially harmful software updates and bugs.
Regarding claim 14, Mukhopadhyay teaches
The apparatus of claim 13
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
wherein testing the new version of the software using the at least one digital twin comprises testing all communication of an older version of the software with the new version of the software including communication as part of a control plane, a user plane, a management plane, or a combination thereof.
Lin teaches
wherein testing the new version of the software using the at least one digital twin comprises testing all communication of an older version of the software with the new version of the software including communication as part of a control plane, a user plane, a management plane, or a combination thereof (Lin [0094] and [0199] discloses a digital twin being used for monitoring, diagnostics and prognostics to optimize performance of mobility clients. Sensor data is combined with historical data of sensor data retrieved from data repository. The mobility service platform, i.e. MSP, is responsible for this function, acting as a management plane based on the functions in [0090], [0091] and [0095], where the MSP is responsible for exchanging data between mobility clients, consists of the analytic engines that provide software updates, client connectivity, data services, and data retrieving control. Lastly, on [0121] and [0122] discloses that the MSP will send a download information file for upgrading software and if the upgrade fails, rollback operation is conducted with a target version information via communication manager and sends alerts of success/fail for each update/rollback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Lin to “wherein testing the new version of the software using the at least one digital twin comprises testing all communication of an older version of the software with the new version of the software including communication as part of a control plane, a user plane, a management plane, or a combination thereof” in order to have a backup solution in case of update failure, allowing the system to run regardless of the success of an update.
In regards to claim 15, Mukhopadhyay teaches
The apparatus of claim 13
Mukhopadhyay lacks explicitly
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit results of the test of the new version of the software to subscribers, a communication channel, or a combination thereof.
Lin teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit results of the test of the new version of the software to subscribers, a communication channel, or a combination thereof. (Lin [0097] and [0122] discloses the client module reports appropriate success/fail alerts to MSP for each update/rollback. MSP handles the connections to the third part server computers to request and receive results generated, then each mobility client that is subscribed for the particular applications will receive the new versions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mukhopadhyay to incorporate the teachings of Lin to “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit results of the test of the new version of the software to subscribers, a communication channel, or a combination thereof” in order to provide subscribers with the finished result, allowing the update to conclude.
With regards to claim 16, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 12. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
With regards to claim 17, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 13. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13 above.
With regards to claim 18, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 14. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 14 above.
With regards to claim 19, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 15. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights