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 .
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 4-20 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.
With regard to claim 4, the term/acronym near-RT RIC 161 is not defined in the claim. Thus the claim is rejected.
Claims 5-8 are similarly rejected for their dependency on claim 4, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
With regard to claim 9, the acronym CU-CP is has not been defined, therefore the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Additionally, claim 9 recites, in part, “analyzing, at the CU-CP the slice SLA and providing a CU-CP an initial estimate of resources needed for the slice for the update”. It is unclear how the CU-CP analyzes the SLA and then the slice analytics module of the CU-CP then sends the CU-CP an estimate. If the CU-CP and slice analytics module are the same entity, why does the slice analytics module forward an estimate to itself. Or does it forward the estimate to different CU-CP. The claim is unclear.
Claim 9 also recites, in part, “communicating, by the CU-CP, slice-related performance measures to CU-CP”. Again, how/why would the CU-CP which performs the calculation send the performance measures to itself.
Claim 10 recites an E2 node, the office notes that E2 node and the acronym E2 is defined.
Claims 11-20 depend from claim 10 and are rejected for their dependency thereon and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a method for optimizing service-level-policy-based network performance management in a 5G wireless network slice, comprising”. The office recommends adding a colon after the word comprising.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou et al. (WO 2022/217083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chou discloses:
a method for optimizing service-level-policy-based network performance management in a 5G wireless network slice (p.1, lines 15-23: methods an apparatus to optimize and support radio resource management (RRM) for network slice instances.” Pg.2 lines 11-13: “systems and methods for supporting radio resource management (RRM) optimization for network slice instances in 5G systems”), comprising:
analyzing, by a slice analytics module, a target slice throughput of the slice in comparison to an observed slice throughput of the slice to compute a the slice-throughput error function (The office equates the error function to the stated RRC resource optimization function as discussed on pg.3 lines 5-10, the RRM resource optimalization function. Also, pg.9 lines 9 through pg.10 line 2, and fig(s). 1-3 which describes comparing a target slice throughput to determine if/how the slice can be optimized see pg.3 as discussed above);
updating, by the slice analytics module, based on at least the slice-throughput error function, at least one of the following:
a radio resource management policy maximum ratio (rRMPolicyMaxRatio) for the slice;
a radio resource management policy minimum ratio (rRMPolicyMinRatio) for the slice; and
a radio resource management policy dedicated ratio (rRMPolicyDedicatedRatio) for the slice (see pg.9 lines 32 pg.12 line 18 which describes the updating of one or allow of the above parameters.).
Regarding claim 3, Chou discloses:
wherein the updating comprises at least one of:
i) increasing the rRMPolicyMaxRatio for the slice;
ii) decreasing the rRMPolicyMaxRatio for the slice;
iii) increasing the rRMPolicyMinRatio for the slice;
iv) decreasing the rRMPolicyMinRatio for the slice;
v) increasing the rRMPolicyDedicatedRatio for the slice; and
vi) decreasing the rRMPolicyDedicatedRatio for the slice (see pg.9 lines 32 pg.12 line 18 which describes the updating of one or allow of the above parameters.).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou as applied to independent claim 1, in view of Song et al. (US 2023/0139546 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure of Chou teaches the independent claims, but may not disclose:
wherein the slice analytics module is at a near-RT RIC 161 , the method further comprising: subscribing, at the near-RT RIC 161, to slice-related parameters, from an E2 node; receiving the slice-related parameters the near-RT RIC 161 from the E2 node; analyzing, by slice analytics module, the slice-related parameters to determine an adaptive action for the updating; and communicating the adaptive action to the E2 node.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Song teaches:
Wherein the slice analytics module is a near-RT RIC 161 (fig.6 element 640 RIC), the method further comprising:
subscribing, at the near-RT RIC 161, to slice-related parameters, from an E2 node (fig.6 element 640 and 610, the RIC subscribes at the E2 node 610, par.[0094]);
receiving the slice-related parameters the near-RT RIC 161 from the E2 node (fig.11b E2SM-NI RIC INDICATION per-UE level KPI report service model. Also fig.12c and par.[0112 – 0113]);
analyzing, by slice analytics module, the slice-related parameters to determine an adaptive action for the updating (par.[0113] which recites, in part, “disclosure may dynamically optimize the UL/DL PRB configuration and a scheduling priority, based on traffic of each slice of a cell. For example, when a traffic demand for a slice is high, the near-RT RIC may increase a UL/DL PRB portion for the slice.”); and
communicating the adaptive action to the E2 node (fig.12c wherein the Near-RIC sends the E2 control/policy to the O-DU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Chou, with the disclosure of Song. The motivation/suggestion would have been to dynamically alter the slice configurations used by user terminals in the network based on throughput or other metrics.
Regarding claim 5, Song discloses:
wherein the near-RT RIC 161 receives the slice-related parameters from the E2 node periodically or on an event basis (par.[0112] which recites, in part, “the DU may transmit an E2 report to the near-RT RIC” which indicates an event basis or periodically, par.[0135]).
Regarding claim 6, Song discloses:
wherein the E2 node is a Distributed Unit (DU) (fig.12c the Donor Unit (DU) which transmits to the near-RIC), and the slice-related parameters comprise at least one of:
an observed throughput of the slice (par.[0112] the observed throughput per slice);
a number of Data Radio Bearers (DRBs) or logical channels for each 5G Quality of Service Identifier (5QI) type corresponding to the slice;
an average Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) for a current reporting interval, where the CQI is indicated by a User Equipment (UE) 101 to a gNodeB (gNB) 106;
a fraction of DRBs for each 5QI j for which a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement cannot be met by the DU 152;
a dedicated, prioritized, and shared pool of (Resource Blocks) RBs for the slice;
utilized RBs from the dedicated, prioritized, and shared pool of RBs for the slice;
a number of RBs used for each 5QI type corresponding to the slice;
an RB utilization in the cell;
a location info each of the UEs 101; and
weights used to compute a scheduling metric for each of the DRBs or logical channels at the DU 152
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, and 7-20 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 overcoming the 112 rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bai et al. (US 2024/0305533 A1) “Radio Resource Planning and Slice-Aware Scheduling for Intelligent Radio Access Network”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights