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 .
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.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 10 June 2024. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Specification
The amendment to the specification and the abstract filed on 10 June 2024 is acknowledged and entered into the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5 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. Claims 4 and 5 recite “LSTM type algorithm”. The acronym LSTM is not defined by the claims rendering the scope of the term ambiguous. Accordingly, claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of clarity.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Filippou et al. (US 2023/0074288 A1).
Regarding claim1, Filippou appears to disclose a method for predicting a variation in the quality of service in a V2X communication network comprising at least one base station, to which at least one user equipment is connected (Fig. 1, Fig. 5, [0079]), wherein the method comprises:
identifying at least one key performance indicator representative of the quality of service for the at least one user equipment, called a key performance indicator of interest ([0085] disclosing “determining the QoS predictions and/or generating the composite information. For example, other Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) may be collected from other MEC hosts via suitable MEC APIs and/or from core network functions via network exposure functions, and used for predicting the QoS along the planned route”),
predicting through deep learning based on past values of at least one secondary key performance indicator ([0083] disclosing “At operation 515, the MEC Host compiles or otherwise generates QoS predictions and/or composite information based on the planned route of each vUE and/or the measurement reports… the MEC host may operate a trained ML algorithm to predict the QoS along the planned route.”; [0085] disclosing “Indirect fusion utilizes historical data and/or known properties of the environment”), collected for the at least one base station, a future value of the at least one key performance indicator of interest ([0082] disclosing “MEC Host may request the measurements from the NANs at low or high periodicity, or the NANs may provide the measurements…other Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) may be collected from other MEC hosts via suitable MEC APIs and/or from core network functions via network exposure functions”; Fig. 1A NAN 110-1, [0031]-[0032] “Network Access Node (NAN) 110” disclosed as base stations), and
transmitting, where applicable, a notification informing of the variation in quality of service to the at least one user equipment, based on the predicted value (Fig. 5, 525, the MEC host transmits QoS predictions and/or partitions to individual vUEs ).
Regarding claim 3, Filippou appears to disclose the prediction method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises selecting, from a set of secondary key performance indicators, the at least one secondary key performance indicator taken into account for the prediction, a value of the at least one selected secondary key performance indicator influencing a value of the key performance indicator of interest ([0083] disclosing “other Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) may be collected from other MEC hosts via suitable MEC APIs and/or from core network functions via network exposure functions, and used for predicting the QoS along the planned route and/or generating composite information (discussed infra)”).
Regarding claim 4, Filippou appears to disclose the prediction method according to claim 1 wherein the prediction through deep learning implements an LSTM type algorithm ([0083], [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Filippou appears to disclose the prediction method according to claim 4, wherein the LSTM type algorithm is implemented as a sliding window on the past values of the at least one selected secondary key performance indicator ([0083], [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Filippou appears to disclose the prediction method according to claim 1 wherein the prediction is implemented based on past values of at least one secondary key performance indicator, collected for a plurality of base stations neighboring the network (Fig. 4, [0071], [0077] disclosing “This historical information may be used to reduce computational overhead when allocating resources to vUEs that take the same or similar routes”; [0085] disclosing “with current and past measurements in real-time), and/or a prediction state estimation algorithm (e.g., analyzing historical data”).
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 11, the claims are directed towards a device which performs the method of claims 1, 3 and 6; accordingly, claims 7, 9 and 11 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1, 3 and 6.
Regarding claim 10, Filippou appears to disclose the prediction device according to claim 7 wherein the device is integrated into the at least one base station (Fig. 4, [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Filippou appears to disclose a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program to execute the method according to claim 1, when the computer program is executed by the processor ([0315]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 13, Filippou appears to disclose a user equipment connected to at least one base station of a V2X communication network, wherein the user equipment comprises:
a communication module configured to receive a notification informing of a variation in the quality of service predicted according to a prediction method according to claim 1 (Fig. 5, 525; the MEC host transmits QoS predictions and/or partitions to individual vUEs ); and
a module for adapting processing carried out in the user equipment to the variation in the quality of service based on quality of service variation information comprised in the notification ([0080], [0087]-[0088] updates software/firmware based on the indication).
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, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippou et al. (US 2023/0074288 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Filippou suggests the prediction method according to claim 1, wherein the prediction through deep learning also takes into account a distance measurement from the at least one user equipment to the at least one base station ([0082] “e2e delay”, “UE positioning” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider that distance (e.g., to a NAN) is related to both delay and positioning; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Filippou and use a distance/vector technique for positioning. One of ordinary skill, using common sense as a guide would readily understand a distance/vector is a representation of a UE position relative to a NAN and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adopting the techniques of Filippou to substitute distance/vectors for UE positioning based on the level of skill evidenced by the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed towards the device which performs the method of claim 2; accordingly, claim 8 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Filippou suggests the user equipment according to claim 13, wherein the communication module is also configured to transmit a distance measurement from the at least one user equipment to the at least one base station ([0082] measurements collected and reported by the by the vUEs comprising “e2e delay”, “UE positioning” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider that distance (e.g., to a NAN) is related to both delay and positioning; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Filippou and use a distance/vector technique for positioning. One of ordinary skill, using common sense as a guide would readily understand a distance/vector is a representation of a UE position relative to a NAN and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adopting the techniques of Filippou to substitute distance/vectors for UE positioning based on the level of skill evidenced by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights