DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 05/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 05/21/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gad et al. (US 20240430164 A1), hereinafter “Gad”; and in further view of Ranganath et al. (US 20240259879 A1)”, hereinafter “Ranganath”.
Regarding claim 1, Gad teaches An apparatus associated with a network controller in an Open-Radio Access Network (0-RAN) [Gad: Fig. 1; Par. 61 teaches system and device operating in O-RAN] , the apparatus being configured to: receive a request from a RAN function application from among a plurality of RAN function applications associated with the network controller [Gad: Figs. 2- 3; Par. 69 – 113 teaches of receiving requests from xApps], the request being indicative of a change in one or more parameters associated with the plurality of RAN function applications [Gad: Figs. 2- 3; Par. 69 – 113 teaches of requests for changing operation of RAN features];
determine, based on a parameter dependency model associated with the apparatus, whether a conflict will occur as a result of the change in the one or more parameters, wherein the parameter dependency model defines dependencies among a plurality of parameters associated with the plurality of RAN function applications [Gad: Figs. 2- 3; Par. 69 – 113 teaches of configure mitigation conflict and change based on the features of RAN]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
618
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Gad does not teach trigger, based on a set of mitigation rules associated with the parameter dependency model, one or more reconciliation actions upon a determination that the conflict will occur as a result of the change in the one or more parameters.
Nevertheless, Ranganath, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches trigger, based on a set of mitigation rules associated with the parameter dependency model, one or more reconciliation actions upon a determination that the conflict will occur as a result of the change in the one or more parameters [Ranganath: Par. 48 , 173 teaches modified by deployment of different models optimized to individual operator policies and optimization objectives to optimize a specific metric [Par. 189].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Ranganath to deploy dependency model. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Ranganath in the Gad system with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve O-RAN deployment.
Regarding claim 4, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches wherein the network controller is one of a Near-Real Time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller (near RT-RIC) or a Non-Real Time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller (non RT-RIC),when the network controller is the near RT-RIC, the plurality of RAN function applications include xApps, and when the network controller is the non RT-RIC, the plurality of RAN function applications include rApps [Gad: Fig. 10 and Par. 38 teaches controller is RT-RIC and application is xApps ; Ranganath: Par. 32 teaches rApps].
Regarding claim 5, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches wherein the apparatus is further configured to accept the change in the one or more parameters upon a determination that the conflict will not occur as a result of the change in the one or more parameters [Gad: Figs. 9 & 10; Par. 164- 188].
Regarding claim 8, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches determine, based on the set of mitigation rules, that an acceptance of the change in the one or more parameters is disallowed; and reject the change in the one or more parameters [Gad: Figs. 9 & 10; Par. 164- 188].
Regarding claim 9, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches when the network controller is the near RT-RIC, the apparatus is included in the near- RT RIC at one of a framework level or an application level [Ranganath: Par. 72- 73 teaches he xApp manager 425 provides closed control loop functions in real time or near real-time by accepting run-time priority levels of each of the xApps], and the parameter dependency model defines dependencies among E2 parameters and 01 parameters Ranganath: Par. 72- 73
Regarding claim 10, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches when the network controller is the near RT-RIC, the apparatus is included in the non- RT RIC at one of a framework level or an application level [Ranganath: Par. 72- 73 teaches he xApp manager 425 provides closed control loop functions in real time or near real-time by accepting run-time priority levels of each of the xApps] and the parameter dependency model defines dependencies among O2 parameters and A1 parameters [Ranganath: Par. 27].
Regarding claim 11, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches generated and linked to the apparatus during network design by an operator [Ranganath: Par. 292 teaches These tasks may include AI processing].
Regarding claim 12, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches wherein the one or more reconciliation actions include one or more of stopping one or more of the plurality of RAN function applications, adjusting a configuration of one or more of the plurality of RAN function applications, and adjusting an operation of E2 nodes associated with the network controller [Gad: Par. 93 teaches configured to adjust xApp].
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, the combined Gad in view of Ranganath teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Gad in view of Ranganath further teaches the policy parameters, the configuration parameters, and the control parameters are exposed as parameters through one or more open interfaces, the one or more open interfaces including one or more of Al interface, 01 interface, and E2 interface Ranganath: Par. 72- 73,
the network controller is one of a Near-Real Time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller (near RT-RIC) or a Non-Real Time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller (non RT-RIC) [Ranganath: Par. 72- 73 teaches he xApp manager 425 provides closed control loop functions in real time or near real-time by accepting run-time priority levels of each of the xApps],
the plurality of RAN function applications includes one of xApps and rApps,
the parameter dependency model and the set of mitigation rules are encoded in a machine-readable data format Ranganath: Par. 292 teaches These tasks may include AI processing], and
the parameter dependency model is configured to be one of automatically generated by one or more of plurality of RAN function applications based on a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) model or generated during network design by an operator [Ranganath: Par. 292 teaches These tasks may include AI processing].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 14, 16-17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
A full search was conducted and the features of the instant Claims 2-3, 6-7, 14, 16-17 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Gad/ Ranganath system.
With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of method and devices for conflict mitigation of O-RAN [Gad: Figs. 9-10], and using models with AI processing for RAN [Ranganath: Par. 48, 173].
However, the combined Gad/ Ranganath system does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 2-3 reciting;
“Wherein to determine whether the conflict will occur, the apparatus is configured to: identify, based on the received request from the RAN function application, the one or more parameters associated with the request; determine whether the identified one or more parameters are present in the parameter dependency model;
identify, based on the parameter dependency model, whether the identified one or more parameters has a dependency on one or more of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), policy parameters, configuration parameters, and control parameters associated with at least one of the apparatus, the controlled network functions (E2 nodes) and the plurality of RAN function applications running in the network controller; and
determine whether the conflict will occur based on the dependency of the one or more parameters on one or more of the KPIs, the policy parameters, the configuration parameters, and the control parameters”
Moreover, the combined Gad/ Ranganath system does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 6-7 reciting;
“wherein to trigger the one or more reconciliation actions, the apparatus is configured to:
determine, based on the set of mitigation rules, that an acceptance of the change in the one or more parameters is allowed;
determine a requirement of a change in a related parameter associated with at least one other RAN function application from among the plurality of RAN function applications; send, to the at least one other RAN function application, a related parameter request indicative of a request to accept the change in the related parameter; receive, from the at least one other RAN function application, a related parameter accept response indicating that the change in the related parameter is accepted; and accept the change in the one or more parameters in response to receiving the related parameter accept response”
Moreover, the combined Gad/ Ranganath system does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim 14 reciting;
“wherein determining whether the conflict will occur comprises: identifying, based on the received request from the RAN function application, the one or more parameters associated with the request; determining whether the identified one or more parameters are present in the parameter dependency model; identifying, based on the parameter dependency model, whether the identified one or more parameters has a dependency on one or more of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), policy parameters, configuration parameters, and control parameters associated with at least one of the network controller and the plurality of RAN function applications running in the network controller; and determining whether the conflict will occur based on the dependency of the one or more parameters on one or more of the KPIs, the policy parameters, the configuration parameters, and the control parameters”
Moreover, the combined Gad/ Ranganath system does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 16-17 reciting;
“wherein triggering the one or more reconciliation actions comprises:
determining, based on the set of mitigation rules, that an acceptance of the change in the one or more parameters is allowed;
determining a requirement of a change in a related parameter associated with at least one other RAN function application from among the plurality of RAN function applications;
sending, to the at least one other RAN function application, a related parameter request indicative of a request to accept the change in the related parameter;
receiving, from the at least one other RAN function application, a related parameter accept response indicating that the change in the related parameter is accepted; and
accepting the change in the one or more parameters in response to receiving the related parameter accept response”
Therefore, Claims 2-3, 6-7, 14, 16-17 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights