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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 6/9/26, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
Applicant's arguments regarding certain limitations with respect to the Kanso reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
Kanso paragraph [0041] thus discloses validating a single input, i.e., a UML component model, against the SAF specification constraints. Kanso does not disclose two specifications and the determination of any discrepancies between them. In particular, Kanso does not disclose a "current specification of the system" against which a "first desired specification" is compared. The cited Kanso paragraphs disclose at most a comparison between a software design and a set of standardized constraints applicable to all SAF-managed components.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Kanso indeed discloses two specifications and determines discrepancies between them. Kanso discloses a "current specification of the system" (i.e., a component model) against which a "first desired specification" (i.e., SAF Specifications) is compared, see paragraph [0041]. A component model can clearly be interpreted as the current specification of the system since in paragraph [0042], Kanso states, “In some embodiments, the input process 600 is performed by a computer system, by a network node, or other automated machinery. In one embodiment, the input process 600 starts with receiving a component model that describe a software application design in an extended UML component diagram (block 610).” (Emphasis added). Thus, Kanso teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 8-13 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the system” in line 5 and throughout the claim. These limitations should read, “the (RAN) service providing system.”
Claims 2-4, 8-13 and 28 are objected to for reciting similar limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanso (2015/0095708) in view of Ryu et al. (2020/0314731).
As per claim 1, Kanso teaches a method performed by an intent management function for configuring a system having current specification, the method comprising: receiving intent specification information identifying a first desired specification of a first requested service to be provided by the system [Kanso, paragraphs 0009 and 0025];
determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system [Kanso, paragraphs 0030 and 0041-0042];
after determining that there is a discrepancy between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system, identifying a first group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing said discrepancy [Kanso, paragraphs 0047-0053]; and
implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the first group such that the system provides the first requested service in accordance with the first desired specification [Kanso, paragraphs 0003, 0043 and 0054].
But Kanso fails to explicitly teach, however, Ryu et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches, a radio access network (RAN) service providing system and a first requested RAN service [Ryu et al., paragraph 0209].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanso with Ryu et al. in order to enable implementation of enhanced features and functionalities in 4G/5G systems.
As per claim 2, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying one or more parameters causing the discrepancy between the first desired specification and the current specification of the system, wherein said one or more configuration changes are for changing said one or more parameters [Kanso, paragraph 0003].
As per claim 3, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first desired specification identifies a first requested service and one or more operational requirements related to providing the first requested service [Kanso, paragraph 0030].
As per claim 4, Kanso-Ryu teaches wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises: determining whether the system currently provides the first requested service, and/or determining whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied, and if the system currently provides the first requested service the determining comprises retrieving inventory information identifying a list of services the system currently provides, and determining whether the first requested service is included in the list of services; and if the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied the determining comprises collecting state data indicating one or more operational states of the system, and using the collected state data, determining whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied, and wherein determining whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied further comprises comparing the collected state data to the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service, and whether the one or more operational requirements of the first requested service are currently satisfied is determined based on the comparison [Ryu et al., paragraphs 0137-0145].
As per claim 8, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising adding to a first knowledge base one or more of the following: (i) information identifying the first requested service; (ii) said one or more operational requirements related to providing the first requested service; (iii) the state data; and (iv) said one or more configuration changes [Kanso, paragraph 0034].
As per claim 9, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein implementing in the system said one or more configuration changes in the first group results in updated current specification, and the method further comprises: receiving second specification information identifying a second desired specification of a second requested service for the system; determining whether the system satisfies the second desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the second desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the updated current specification and the second desired specification; after determining that there is a discrepancy between the second desired specification and the updated current specification, identifying a second group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing the discrepancy between the second desired specification and the updated current specification; and implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the second group [Ryu et al., paragraphs 0182-0185].
As per claim 10, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification, wherein determining whether the system satisfies the first desired specification comprises determining whether there are any discrepancies between the updated current specification and the first desired specification [Kanso, paragraph 0041].
As per claim 11, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: after determining that there is a discrepancy between the first desired specification and the updated current specification, identifying a third group of one or more configuration changes for the system for fixing the discrepancy between the first desired specification and the updated current specification; and implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in the third group [Kanso, paragraphs 0043-0045].
As per claim 12, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising adding to a second knowledge base information identifying the second requested service, wherein the second knowledge base is different from the first knowledge base [Kanso, paragraphs 0025-0026].
As per claim 13, Kanso-Ryu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an occurrence of a triggering event; as a result of detecting the occurrence of the triggering event, determining whether the system still satisfies the first desired specification, wherein the triggering event comprises an elapse of a predefined time period or a configuration change in the system; after determining that the system no longer satisfies the first desired specification, identifying another group of one or more configuration changes for the system; implementing in the system one or more configuration changes included in said another group; and updating the first knowledge base by adding to the first knowledge base information indicative of the one or more configuration changes included in said another group [Ryu et al,. paragraphs 0156-0160].
Claim 28 has similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore it is being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights