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 .
This NF is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 5/9/2024.
Claims 45-65 are pending. Claims 45-65 are new. Claims 1-44 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “an identifier of a target NF instance and a NF type associated with the target NF instance” and this limitation lacks support in the Applicant’s specification which describes these two elements in the alternative in the relevant sections as “an identifier of a target NF instance or a NF type associated with the target NF instance.”
Claim 48 repeats the same claim limitation and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 45-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “indication of resource usage by the target NF instance” and also “deviation in processing load or capacity of the target NF instances” and it is not clear if these two limitations are referring to the same idea – is resource usage by target NF instances same as processing load or capacity of the target NF instances? Consistent terminology between related process steps is required. Other independent and dependent claims do not overcome the deficiency and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 45, 51, 53, 61, 63, 64, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estevez (US 2023/0300670 A1, hereinafter Estevez) in view of Fard et al. (US 2019/0215724 A1, hereinafter Fard) and in further view of Ananthanarayanan et al. (US 2022/0414534 A1, hereinafter GN).
Regarding claim 45, Estevez teaches a method for a network data analytics function (NWDAF) of a communication network, the method comprising:
obtaining, from an operations administration maintenance (OAM) network function (NF) of the communication network, the following information for each of one or more target NF instances in the communication network: an identifier of the target NF instance; indication of resource usage by the target NF instance; and resource configuration of the target NF instance, [Par.[0116] (and elsewhere) describes NWDAF subscribing for data from OAM including network slice quotas (resource configuration), and resource usage related information for the network slice instances and/or its constituent NF instances (target NF instance details); Par.[0101 collect resource utilization for NF instances whose identifiers are provided by OAM];
computing one or more analytics, based on the information obtained from the OAM NF and on a capacity dimensioning model for each target NF instance, [claim is not clear what a capacity dimensioning model is but if it is related to AI models, Par.[0013] mentions use of AI models and is related 5G similar to the claimed invention; Figure 3 shows computing analytics and outputting analytics to network analytics consumers]; and
sending, to a consumer NF of the communication network, a message including the computed one or more analytics, [see Figure 1, step 8];
Estevez does not explicitly teach a NF type associated with the target NF instance;
Fard teaches a NF type associated with the target NF instance, [Par.[0210] describes a target NF type as UPF]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Estevez to indicate NF type so that appropriate traffic information may be reported, [Fard: Par.[0092]];
Estevez does not explicitly teach (computing one or more analytics) related to deviation in OAM data (~ processing load or capacity of the target NF instances);
GN in an analogous art teaches (computing one or more analytics) related to deviation, [Par.[0001] for 5G; Figure 4 shows detecting data drift (deviation); Par.[0051], [0058] further describe training a new model responsive to detecting the data drift; notice that Estevez already collects load/capacity data from OAM];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Estevez to detect data drift. The motivation/suggestion would have been to apply appropriate model to use given the changes in the collected data and raise issues and provide answers for the quality of data analytics, [GN: Figure 5, Par.[0005]].
Regarding claim 51, Estevez, Fard, and GN disclose the method of claim 45, wherein the resource configuration of the one or more target NF instances includes indications of one or more of the following, for each of the target NF instances: characteristics of processing chipset used; build and/or release of software used;
NF deployment type, [claim limitation is recited in the alternative; dependent claim is obvious over Estevez in view of Fard for the same reasons as in claim 45; Par.[0210] describes a target NF type as UPF];
virtual machine (VM) configuration; number of VMs or physical machines (PMs) currently used; maximum number of available VMs or PMs; processing redundancy scheme; and networking capacity.
Claim 53 is an obvious variant of claim 45 and from the perspective of service consumer in Figure 1 of Estevez and rejection based on the citations for those claims apply.
Claim 60 is an obvious variant of claim 45 and from the perspective of OAM and is rejected based on the citations from claim 45.
Claim 61 corresponds to claim 51 and is rejected as above.
Claim 63 corresponds to claim 45 and is rejected as above, [Figure 1 and NWDAF].
Claim 64 corresponds to claim 53 and is rejected as above, [Figure 1 and consumer function].
Claim 65 corresponds to claim 60 and is rejected as above, Figure 1 and OAM].
Claims 46-49, 54, 55, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estevez in view of Fard and GN and in further view of Bega et al. (US 2023/0068651 A1, hereinafter Bega).
Regarding claim 46, Estevez, Fard, and GN disclose the method of claim 45, further comprising receiving, from the consumer NF, a subscription request for a capacity analytic associated with the one or more target NF instances, wherein: the computed one or more analytics are sent in response to the subscription request; and the subscription request includes the following: an identifier of the requested capacity analytic; and one or more tuples, each tuple including: an identifier of a target NF instance or a target NF type; an indication of whether a capacity dimensioning model is requested for the identified target NF instance or type; and an indication of committed capacity for the identified target NF instance or instances of the identified target NF type, [Figure 1, step 1 shows analytic ID. S-NSSAI, AOI, NSI IDs, Threshold; Par.[0116] for slice quotas (committed capacity)];
Estevez, Fard, and GN do not explicitly disclose an indication of whether a capacity dimensioning model is requested for the identified target NF instance or type;
Bega, in an analogous art teaches an indication of whether a capacity dimensioning model is requested for the identified target NF instance or type, [Figure 3, step 7 includes Model ID]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include model ID for the service analytics requested, [Bega: Par.[0076]].
Regarding claim 47, Estevez, Fard, GN, and Bega disclose the method of claim 46, Estevez teaches wherein obtaining the information from the OAM NF of the communication network comprises: sending, to the OAM NF, a request including one or more tuples corresponding to the one or more target NF instances identified by the subscription request, wherein each tuple includes an identifier of a target NF instance and a NF type associated with the target NF instance; and receiving the information from the OAM NF in response to the request, [Figure 1, step 4a, Par.[0101].
Regarding claim 48, Estevez, Fard, GN, and Bega disclose the method of claim 46, Estevez teaches further comprising: sending a request to a network repository function (NRF) of the communication network, wherein the request includes one or more tuples corresponding to the one or more target NF instances identified by the subscription request, wherein each tuple includes an identifier of a target NF instance and a NF type associated with the target NF instance; and receiving, from the NRF, NF profile information for the target NF instances identified in the request, wherein the NF profile information for each target NF instance includes one or more of the following: current status, load at a corresponding time, and capacity, [Figure 1, step 4b and also Par.[0101]].
Regarding claim 49, Estevez, Fard, GN, and Bega disclose the method of claim 46, and Fard teaches wherein: the target NF instances are instances of a user plane function (UPF); the method further comprises obtaining a traffic usage report from the UPF; and computing the one or more analytics is further based on the traffic usage report, [dependent claim is obvious over Estevez in view of Fard for the same reasons as in claim 45; Par.[0210] NF type of the target NF is UPF; Par.[0092] describes traffic usage reporting and Estevez already shows support for computing analytics received from OAM about target NF instances (e.g. UPF)]].
Claim 54 corresponds to claim 46 and is rejected as above.
Claim 55 is an obvious variant of claims 48 and 49 and rejection based on the citations for those claims apply.
Claim 57 corresponds to claim 51 and is rejected as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 62 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 and overcome all 112 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0093130 A1 Drift detection for network models; US 20210184958 A1 Drift detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at 571 272 7493. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441