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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 12/04/2025.
Claims 11, 14-23 and 26-34 are presently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11,14-23 and 26-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response, and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly defines the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennewick, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0082412 in view of Beaver et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0387673.
Regarding claim 18, Kennewick discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a second network element, first time information from a first network element, wherein the first time information indicates a first time in which the second network element sends feedback information, and the feedback information indicates whether a first intent is achieved (see Kennewick, ¶ [0006], [0023] and [0047]; information indicating user’s intent not achieved is disclosed); determining, by the second network element, a second time, wherein the second time is time for generating an intent operation corresponding to the first intent (see Kennewick, ¶ [0022]; indication of lack of performing according to proper intent is received).
Although Kennewick discloses the in invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose and sending, by the second network element, first indication information to the first network element in response to determining that the first time is shorter than the second time, wherein the first indication information indicates that the second network element does not send the feedback information within the first time, or the first indication information indicates that the second network element is to send the feedback information within a third time, and the third time is determined based on the second time.
Beaver teaches and sending, by the second network element, first indication information to the first network element when the first time is shorter than the second time, wherein the first indication information indicates that the second network element does not send the feedback information within the first time, or the first indication information indicates that the second network element is to send the feedback information within a third time, and the third time is determined based on the second time (see Beaver, ¶ [0039], [0108] and [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Beaver with that of Kennewick in order to efficiently determine the correct intent based on analysis of the feedback times.
Regarding claim 19, Kennewick-Beaver teaches further comprising: receiving, by the second network element, second time information from a fourth network element, wherein the second time information indicates a fourth time for generating an intent solution corresponding to the first intent; and wherein determining, by the second network element, the second time comprises: determining, by the second network element, the second time based on the second time information (see Kennewick, ¶ [0057] and Beaver, ¶ [0039] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 20, Kennewick-Beaver teaches wherein the third time is a time for completing the intent operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0051] and Beaver, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 21, Kennewick-Beaver teaches further comprising: receiving, by the second network element, second indication information from the first network element, wherein the second indication information indicates to the second network element to determine the second time (see Kennewick, ¶ [0022] and Kennewick, ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 22, Kennewick-Beaver teaches further comprising: sending, by the second network element, reason information to the first network element, wherein the reason information indicates a reason why the second network element does not send the feedback information within the first time (see Kennewick, ¶ [0034] and Beaver, ¶ [0111]).
4. Claim(s) 11, 14-17, 23, and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennewick, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0082412 in view of Beaver et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0387673 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Piernot et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0102378.
Regarding clam 11, Kennewick discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a first network element, first information from a second network element, wherein the first information indicates that a first intent is not achieved (see Kennewick, ¶ [0006], [0023] and [0047]; information indicating user’s intent not achieved is disclosed); receiving, by the first network element, second information from the second network element, wherein the second information indicates that an intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed (see Kennewick, ¶ [0022]; indication of lack of performing according to proper intent is received).
Although Kennewick discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose and determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent.
Beaver teaches and determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent (see Beaver, ¶ [0007] and [00108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Beaver with that of Kennewick in order to efficient evaluate the intent based on the feedback received.
Although the combination of Kennewick and Beaver disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose and wherein the second information indicating that the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed comprises: the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed after being sent to a third network element, wherein the third network element is a network element that performs the first intent operation.
Piernot teaches and wherein the second information indicating that the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed comprises: the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed after being sent to a third network element, wherein the third network element is a network element that performs the first intent operation (see Piernot, ¶ [0232],[0233] and [0263]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Piernot with that of Kennewick-Beaver in order to efficiently perform the intent based on the necessary parameters in the latest received information.
Regarding claim 14, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the first network element receives the first information from the second network element a plurality of times, and determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, by the first network element based on the first information received the plurality of times and the second information, not to adjust the first intent (see Kennewick, ¶ [0057] and Beaver, ¶ [0039] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 15, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to perform the following operation on the first intent: a modification operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0076] and Beaver, [0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to perform the following operation on the first intent: a deletion operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0057] and Beaver, ¶ [0108]).
Regarding claim 17, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, by the first network element based on the first information and the second information, not to perform the following operation on the first intent: a deactivation operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0062] and Beaver, ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 23, Kennewick discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute a computer program stored in a memory, to enable the apparatus to implement: receiving first information from a second network element, wherein the first information indicates that a first intent is not achieved (see Kennewick, ¶ [0006], [0023] and [0047]; information indicating user’s intent not achieved is disclosed); receiving second information from the second network element, wherein the second information indicates that an intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed (see Kennewick, ¶ [0022]; indication of lack of performing according to proper intent is received).
Although Kennewick discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose and determining based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent.
Beaver teaches and determining based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent (see Beaver, ¶ [0007] and [00108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Beaver with that of Kennewick in order to efficient evaluate the intent based on the feedback received.
Although the combination of Kennewick and Beaver disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose and wherein the second information indicating that the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed comprises: the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed after being sent to a third network element, wherein the third network element is a network element that performs the first intent operation.
Piernot teaches and wherein the second information indicating that the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed comprises: the intent operation corresponding to the first intent is not performed after being sent to a third network element, wherein the third network element is a network element that performs the first intent operation (see Piernot, ¶ [0232],[0233] and [0263]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Piernot with that of Kennewick-Beaver in order to efficiently perform the intent based on the necessary parameters in the latest received information.
Regarding claim 26, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the apparatus receives the first information from the second network element a plurality of times, and determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, based on the first information received the plurality of times and the second information, not to adjust the first intent (see Kennewick, ¶ [0057] and Beaver, ¶ [0039] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 27, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to perform the following operation on the first intent: a modification operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0076] and Beaver, [0007]).
Regarding claim 28, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to perform the following operation on the first intent: a deletion operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0057] and Beaver, ¶ [0108]).
Regarding claim 29, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to adjust the first intent comprises: determining, based on the first information and the second information, not to perform the following operation on the first intent: a deactivation operation (see Kennewick, ¶ [0062] and Beaver, ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 30, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the second network element periodically sends a feedback message to the first network element, the feedback message carries the first information or the second information (see Beaver, ¶ [0108]).
Regarding claim 31, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the first network element presets that the first intent is adjusted when the first information indicating that the first intent is not achieved is carried in N feedback messages, and N is an integer (see Beaver, ¶ [0108] and Piernot, ¶ [0233] and [0254]).
Regarding claim 32, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the second network element determines the intent operation corresponding to the first intent based on a request of the first network element to create the first intent, and delivers the intent operation to the third network element (see Kennewick, ¶ [0037] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 33, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the second network element periodically sends a feedback message to the apparatus, and the feedback message carries the first information or the second information (see Beaver, ¶ [0108]).
Regarding claim 34, Kennewick-Beaver-Piernot teaches wherein the apparatus presets that the first intent is adjusted when the first information indicating that the first intent is not achieved is carried in N feedback messages, and N is an integer (see Beaver, ¶ [0108] and Piernot, ¶ [0233] and [0254]).
Prior Art of Record
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444