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 responsive to the Application filed on 08/08/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the 08/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: “using model may be be triggered” in paragraph [0118].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 18-20 recite “computer-readable storage medium,”. This allows the claim to encompass signals per se, which is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture,” or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner suggests to amend the claim to “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
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 1-8, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shete et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240250904, published on 2024-07-25 (hereinafter Shete) in view of Lo et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210337420, published on 2021-10-28 (hereinafter Lo).
As for independent claim 1, Shete discloses a system and method comprising receiving, by a Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework from a first entity, a first request relating to use of an external application
(Shete paragraphs [0139] and [0140] disclose a first entity (NRT-RIC) sending a request containing necessary configurations (as such is related to using an external application) to an SMO, “O1-related data such as necessary configurations, performance indicators, measurement data (e.g., cell load-related information and traffic information, EE/EC measurement reports, cell level configurations), etc. towards NRT-RIC framework via the R1 interface. In operation 2, the NRT-RIC framework requests the SMO framework to collect O1-related data from E2 Nodes.”)
transmitting, by the SMO framework to a second entity, a second request relating to performance of the external application
(Shete paragraphs [0139] and [0141] disclose an SMO sends a request to a second entity (E2 Node) for O1 data which include performance indicators, “O1-related data such as necessary configurations, performance indicators, measurement data…In operation 3, the SMO framework function (i.e., SMO function) requests data collection towards E2 nodes”)
receiving, by the SMO framework from the second entity, an indication of a result corresponding to the second request transmitted to the second entity
(Shete paragraph [0143] discloses the second entity (E2 node) sending the result of the request by sending the requested O1 data to the SMO, “In operation 5, the one or more E2 nodes (i.e., the O-CU, O-DU, etc.) send the O1-related data, such as configuration data, configured measurement data, etc. to the SMO periodically or event-based.”)
Shete does not appear to disclose a system and method comprising transmitting an instruction for wireless communication based on the indication.
However, Lo does disclose a system and method comprising transmitting an instruction for wireless communication based on the indication.
(Lo paragraph [0113] discloses an SMO communicating (or transmitting) with a near-RT RIC to configure it for radio network control based on data received from another server, “The AI/ML server uses the processed data to train an ML model, then transfers the trained ML model, metadata, and training results to the SMO through an interface, which is described at operation 503. At operation 504, the SMO and non-RT RIC use the trained ML model to communicate with the near-RT RIC in order to configure it and the CU/DU.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the invention to combine Lo with Shete in order to provide better feedback resulting in enhanced operation of the radio access network.
As for claim 2, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Shete discloses a system and method comprising configuring a data path between a third entity and the second entity based on the second request for input data to be transmitted by the third entity to the second entity
(Shete paragraph [0135] discloses opening a data path (FH M-Plane) between a second entity (E2 node) and a third entity (O-RU), “once when R1 interface and O1 interface connectivity and the open FH M-Plane interface is established between the E2 node and O-RU. “)
and transmitting the data path to the third entity, the indication of the result being in response to the input data from the third entity.
(Shete paragraph [0142] disclose the third entity (O-RU) receiving this path and using it to send data to E2 node, “the E2 nodes (i.e., the O-CU, O-DU, etc.) upon receiving the request from SMO requests and collects O1-related data necessary for optimizing a carrier and/or cell switch off/on (i.e., the configuration data, configured measurement data) from O-RU via the open FH M-Plane interface.”)
As for claim 3, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Shete discloses a system and method wherein the second request is transmitted by routing the first request or mapping the first request to the second request to cause the second entity to receive.
(Shete figure 6 shows the SMO forwarding the data collection request from the NRT-RIC to the E2 node)
As for claim 4, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Lo discloses a system and method wherein the external application comprises an artificial intelligence or machine learning (AI/ML) model,
(Lo paragraph [0011] disclose an SMO interfacing with an external AI/ML server, “a service management and orchestration (SMO) entity enabling a functional split between a non-real-time (RT) radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC) and an external artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) server”)
and wherein the method further comprises: transmitting a third request to deploy the AI/ML model to the second entity;
(Lo paragraph [0156] discloses an SMO sending a request to an AI/ML server which results in a deployment of an AI/ML model (worded as transfers trained ML model); “FIG. 10 is an example flow diagram of SMO-initiated fallback procedure for near-RT RIC and CU/DU for enabling the SMO to initiate a fallback procedure to a near-RT RIC and CU/DU according to embodiments of the present disclosure. … the AI/ML server then transfers the trained ML model, metadata, and training results to the SMO through an interface, which is described at operation”)
and in response to the third request, receiving endpoint information for accessing the deployed AI/ML model.
(Lo paragraph [134-140] discloses an AI/ML server using pointers (equivalent to endpoints) to send and receive data between the server and SMO, “The interface between the non-RT RIC and the AI/ML server may convey in part or entirely: pointers to SMO data from non-RT RIC to AI/ML server AI/ML server uses these pointers to retrieve SMO data from data store the following from AI/ML server to non-RT RIC: Trained AI/ML models Training results for A1 policies Training results for RAN/near-RT RIC parameters”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lo with Shete in order to have easier communication between the multiple components of a system.
As for claim 5, the limitations of the parent claim 4 have been discussed. Shete discloses a system and method wherein the second request comprises inference input data for the AI/ML model,
(Shete paragraph [0118] discloses O1 data (the same type as the second request previously discussed) has data used in AI/ML inference, “the O1-related data providing O1 configurations required to perform the cell and/or carrier switch off/on may be input data, for example, measurement data, used in the AI/ML model training and inference.”)
and wherein the method further comprises: determining the inference input data based on data collected from the wireless communications;
(Shete paragraph [0095] discloses making a decision based on inference data relating to wireless communication, “The decision making may be based on, for example, using training and inference of AI/ML models that assist such energy efficiency EE and/or energy consumption EC functions.”)
and determining an output data type for the indication of the result of the AI/ML model.
(Shete paragraphs [0120], [0121], and [0127] disclose an rApp using AI/ML models determines output data (called O1 configurations), “rApp hosts the plurality of AI/ML models and re-trains one AI/ML model of the plurality of AI/ML models…. the rApp monitors the O1-related data providing O1 configurations required to perform the cell and/or carrier switch off/on via the R1 interface through the NRT-RIC framework and via an O1 interface through the SMO function within the SMO framework…. the rApp determines to generate O1 configuration data to prepare and execute the cell and/or carrier switch off/on (i.e., output data) in case a predetermined performance objective (e.g., an EE/ES performance objective) is not achieved. In this case, the rApp generates O1 configuration data to prepare and execute the cell and/or carrier switch off/on.”)
As for claim 6, the limitations of the parent claim 5 have been discussed. Lo discloses a system and method comprising determining at least one measurement of the wireless communications or the AI/ML model;
(Lo paragraph [0156] disclose the SMO responding to a measurement (pre-configured trigger event) in a near-RT RIC (wireless communications system), “At operation 1006, the SMO and non-RT RIC respond to a pre-configured trigger event by communicating with the near-RT RIC”)
determining a training request of the AI/ML model or a new model based on the at least one measurement; and transmitting the training request of the AI/ML model or the new model to the second entity.
(Lo paragraph [0156] disclose the SMO making a train (called re-train) command based on the pr-configured trigger and sending the command to the AI/ML model, “At operation 1006, the SMO and non-RT RIC respond to a pre-configured trigger event by communicating with the near-RT RIC… At operation 1007, the SMO transfers a re-train command to the AI/ML server.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lo with Shete in order to have better feedback to the AI/ML server.
As for claim 7, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Shete discloses a system and method wherein the SMO framework is configured to operate on a radio access network domain only, a core network domain only, or both of the radio access network domain and the core network domain.
(Shete paragraph [0007] discloses the SMO framework managing a radio access network (RAN), “The SMO framework, within which the NRT-RIC is located, manages and orchestrates RAN elements.”)
As for claim 8, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Shete discloses a system and method wherein the SMO framework is configured to operate on a specific function or a scope of the wireless communications.
(Shete paragraph [0007] discloses the SMO framework managing a radio access network (RAN) which applicant discloses is a scope the SMO can serve in paragraph [0027] of the application specification, “The SMO framework, within which the NRT-RIC is located, manages and orchestrates RAN elements.”)
As for claim 11, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Shete discloses a system and method wherein the SMO framework comprises a non-real time intelligent controller (Non-RT RIC) and near-real time intelligent controller (Near-RT RIC) to support different time scale operations.
(Shete figure 1 shows and SMO framework with both a Non-RT RIC and Near-RT RIC)
As for independent claim 12, claim 12 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale. As for the structural elements, Shete discloses a system comprising at least one processor.
(Shete paragraph [0016] discloses, “a service management and orchestration (SMO) framework includes a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to implement”)
As for claim 13, the limitations of the parent claim 12 have been discussed. Claim 13 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, the limitations of the parent claim 12 have been discussed. Claim 14 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, the limitations of the parent claim 14 have been discussed. Claim 15 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, the limitations of the parent claim 15 have been discussed. Claim 16 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 18, claim 18 reflects a computer-readable storage medium configured to perform the method of claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 19, the limitations of the parent claim 18 have been discussed. Claim 19 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, the limitations of the parent claim 19 have been discussed. Claim 20 reflects a system to perform the method of claims 5 and 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shete in view of Lo in further view of Senarath et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190021010, published on 2019-01-17 (hereinafter Senarath).
As for claim 9, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Senarath discloses a system and method comprising registering the external application, wherein registering the external application comprises: retrieving information associated with the external application in a memory to register the external application, or receiving the information associated with the external application from the second entity to register the external application.
(Senarath paragraph [0137] discloses an NEF (second entity) mediating communication between an SMF (similar to SMO) and an external application for setup exchanging information, “an NEF 96 can act much like a proxy between an application server outside the illustrated network and network functions such as the Policy Control Function (PCF) 100, the SMF 92 and the AMF 90, so that the external application server can provide information that may be of used in the setup of the parameters associated with a data session.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Senarath with Lo and Shete in order to have a more secure and more efficient network.
As for claim 10, the limitations of the parent claim 9 have been discussed. Senarath discloses a system and method comprising identifying the external application using a discovery operation in the SMO framework.
(Senarath paragraph [0137] discloses a discovery function allowing network functions to find other network function including external applications, “The service discovery functionality can allow network functions and UEs connected to the network to determine where and how to access existing network functions”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Senarath with Lo and Shete in order to have a more secure and more efficient network.
As for claim 17, the limitations of the parent claim 12 have been discussed. Claim 17 reflects a system to perform the method of claim 9 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-9833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/JOHN CALEB LAWRENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
