DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 21-24, 26, 30, 31, 40 and 42 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-17, 19-20, 25, 27-29, 32-39, 41, 43 and 44 were canceled by preliminary amendment.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the apparatus {means substitute} for triggering … configured to … {perform the three limitations that follow in claim 42}.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner finds sufficient structure in the specification on page 6, lines 28 and 29; and the corresponding Figure 4 which clearly shows a hardware implementation for the correlation apparatus.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “less then” in the first limitation is grammatically incorrect. Examiner recommends amending to recite “less than” to cure the objection. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 31, 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant-supplied foreign prior-art reference WO 2020/242987 A1 (Chou).
As to Claims 1, 40 and 42, Chou anticipates a method; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and an apparatus, respectively (Chou – Fig. 1), of triggering one or more congestion mitigation actions in a communication network (Chou discloses mitigating network traffic congestion while load balancing by handing over traffic to neighboring cells - ¶ [159]), the communication network comprising a core network domain and a cellular radio access network, RAN, domain having an Open RAN, O-RAN, architecture (Chou discloses the core network domain and O-RAN - ¶¶ [9, 16]), the method comprising:
evaluating a temporal behavior of at least one congestion indicator for individual cells in the RAN domain to identify one or more candidate cells that are prone to suffering from congestion (Chou discloses determining in real-time {temporal} that some UEs need to be congestion-relieved and reassignment to a different UE or UEs - ¶¶ [157-159]);
correlating, for at least one of the one or more candidate cells, session-related information from the core network domain with RAN information from the RAN domain to derive at least one quality indicator for the at least one candidate cell (Chou discloses the core network/RAN device-to device communications; collection and analysis of load information; and handover for load balancing of said devices for the purpose of congestion reduction via load balancing - ¶¶ [144, 271]); and
triggering, dependent on the at least one quality indicator derived for the at least candidate cell, one or more congestion mitigation actions (Chou discloses the triggering of load balancing based on cell load measurements - ¶ [155]).
As to Claim 2, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving the RAN information via a first interface of an O-RAN Service Management and Orchestration, SMO, framework (Chou discloses SMOFW - ¶¶ [157-158]).
As to Claim 3, Chou anticipates the method of claim 2, wherein:
at least the correlation step is performed by the O-RAN SMO framework, and comprising receiving the session-related information via a second interface of the O-RAN SMO framework from the core network domain (Chou - ¶ [145]).
As to Claim 4, Chou anticipates the method of claim 2, wherein;
at least the correlation step is performed by a server external to the O-RAN SMO framework, and comprising receiving the RAN information via a third interface of the O-RAN SMO framework by the server (Chou - ¶ [145]),
the method further comprising receiving, by the server external to the O-RAN SMO framework, the session-related information from the core network domain via a fourth interface of the server (Chou - ¶ [145]).
As to Claim 6, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, comprising:
correlating, after at least one of the one or more congestion mitigation actions has been triggered, fresh session-related information with fresh RAN information to derive at least one fresh quality indicator (Chou - ¶ [144]); and
determining, based on the at least one fresh quality indicator, if the at least one congestion mitigation action needs to be modified (Chou - ¶ [144]).
As to Claim 7, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, comprising:
triggering, responsive to determining that the at least one candidate cell is prone to suffering from congestion, monitoring in the core network domain of the session-related information for the at least one candidate cell (Chou - ¶ [155]).
As to Claim 8, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
at least a first of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered to be performed in the core network domain (Chou - ¶ [155]),
wherein the communication network is configured to transport service traffic for different services, and wherein the first of the congestion mitigation actions comprises service traffic shaping (Chou - ¶ [155]).
As to Claim 10, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
the communication network is configured to transport service traffic for a first service and for a second service, and wherein the at least one quality indicator is derived separately for the first service and for the second service (Chou - ¶ [145]),
the at least one congestion mitigation action is triggered when the at least one quality indicator derived for the at least candidate cell fulfills at least one degradation criterion (Chou - ¶ [145]), and
there exist different degradation criteria for the first service and the second service (Chou - ¶ [145]).
As to Claim 13, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
the communication network is configured to transport service traffic for a first service and for a second service, and wherein a second of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered for the first service and not triggered for the second service (Chou - ¶ [145]), and
a third of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered for the second service and not triggered for the first service, or wherein no congestion mitigation action is triggered for the second service (Chou - ¶ [145]).
As to Claim 15, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
at least a fourth of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered to be performed in the RAN domain (Chou - ¶ [145]),
wherein the RAN domain is configured to transport service traffic for a first service on a first radio bearer or channel and is further configured to transport service traffic for a second service on a second radio bearer or channel, and wherein the fourth of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered for the first radio bearer or channel and not triggered for the second radio bearer or channel (Chou - ¶ [145]),
wherein a fifth of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered for the second radio bearer or channel and not triggered for the first radio bearer or channel, or wherein no congestion mitigation action is triggered for the second radio bearer or channel (Chou - ¶ [145]).
As to Claim 18, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
the communication network is configured to provide communication services on a subscription basis to a first subscriber set and to a second subscriber set, and wherein a sixth of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered for the first subscriber set and not for the second subscriber set (Chou - ¶ [271]),
wherein a seventh of the one or more congestion mitigation actions is triggered for the second subscriber set and not triggered for the first subscriber set, or wherein no congestion mitigation action is triggered for the second subscriber set (Chou - ¶ [271]),
wherein at least one of the sixth and the seventh congestion mitigation action is triggered to be performed in the core network domain (Chou - ¶ [271]).
As to Claim 21, Chou anticipates the method of claim 18, comprising:
correlating the session-related information with subscription information to derive the at least one quality indicator separately for the first subscriber set and the second subscriber set (Chou - ¶ [271]);
wherein, as an option, the at least one congestion mitigation action is triggered when the at least one quality indicator derived for the at least candidate cell fulfills at least one degradation criterion and wherein there exist different degradation criteria for the first subscriber set and the second subscriber set (Chou - ¶ [271]).
As to Claim 22, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
correlating the session-related information with the RAN information comprises associating session-related information gathered in the core network domain for a particular session with RAN information gathered in the RAN domain for or during the particular session (Chou - ¶ [271]).
As to Claim 24, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, wherein:
the RAN information comprises at least one of RAN node statistics and RAN node counter information (Chou - ¶ [256]), or
the RAN information relates to at least one of physical resource block utilization, throughput, number of users, cell trace events, and radio resource control-related information.
As to Claim 31, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, comprising:
performing a root cause analysis for each of the one or more candidate cells (Chou – Claim 20 – Pages 123 and 124); and
selecting, based on a result of the root cause analysis, at least one of the one or more congestion mitigation actions to be triggered (Chou – Claim 20).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant-supplied foreign prior-art reference WO 2020/242987 A1 (Chou), in view of applicant-supplied non-patent literature entitled “Understanding O-RAN: Architecture, Interfaces, Algorithms, Security, and Research Challenges” (Polese et al.).
As to Claim 30, Chou discloses the method of claim 1.
Chou discloses evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator as cited above, but does not expressly disclose evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator comprises applying a machine learning algorithm. However, Polese discloses
evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator comprises applying a machine learning algorithm (Polese discloses the SMO using machine learning “ML” models – Page 4, first full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine using a machine learning algorithm, taught by Polese, with evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator, taught by Chou, in order to enhance calculation and determination of scalability (Polese – Page 4, first full paragraph).
As to Claim 23, Chou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
Chou discloses evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator as cited above, but does not expressly disclose evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator comprises a temporal extrapolation of the at least one congestion indicator. However, Polese discloses
evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator comprises a temporal extrapolation of the at least one congestion indicator (Polese discloses the SMO using machine learning “ML” models – Page 4, first full paragraph. Machine learning models are known for prediction, which is a form of extrapolation).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 30.
As to Claim 26, Chou anticipates the method of claim 1, including: evaluating the temporal behavior of the at least one congestion indicator, but does not disclose a short-term prediction for a time period of less than an hour. However, Polese discloses
a short-term prediction for a time period of less then [sic] an hour (Polese discloses near real-time RIC and Control Loop – Page 4, second full paragraph).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 30.
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See FORM PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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 A 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444