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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barchi (US 20240357412 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Barchi discloses:
“A method performed by a device in a radio access network of a communication system, comprising: controlling a deterministic network configuration; executing one or more applications in accordance with the deterministic network configuration; determining a performance characterization metric; and adjusting a deterministic network flow rate of the radio access network based on the performance characterization metric.” ([¶ 0033]: “Outputs, e.g., NEC/path adjustment data, can comprise path alteration data 470 that can comprise data indicating an adjustment to a path between a UE and an NEC instance, instructions and/or signals to initiate and/or cause an adjustment to a path between a UE and an NEC instance, etc. NEC/path adjustment data can further comprise EPC alteration data 472 that can cause a change to an EPC component, for example, changing a priority of a signal and/or data being communicated via an EPC, etc.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-13, 15-16, 26-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi (US 20240357412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nazakoto discloses:
“A communication system, comprising: a core network; and a radio access network comprising a central unit communicatively coupled to (i) the core network via a backhaul network, and (ii) a plurality of distributed units via a fronthaul network; wherein each of the plurality of distributed units is co-located with a radio unit and comprises an edge-enabled device; wherein the edge-enabled device of each of the plurality of distributed units comprises a communication data link, one or more processors, and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the edge-enabled device to perform operations” ([¶ 0078]: “In Placement 11 (see FIG. 4A), an RU, a DU, and a CU are placed at the site 410, a UPF is placed in the edge cloud 421, and an SMF and an AMF are placed at the data center 430. Additionally, in order to make the communication latency lower, some of the functions of the apps are placed at the site 410, and an MEC 450 at the site 410 is used.” Wherein the DC and edge cloud may reasonably be interpreted as core network, the connection between the CU and the DC/edge cloud may reasonably be interpreted be interpreted as backhaul because it is offsite, and the connection between the CU and DU may be reasonably interpreted as fronthaul because it is on site.)
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose “comprising: controlling a deterministic network configuration; executing one or more applications in accordance with the deterministic network configuration; determining a performance characterization metric; and adjusting a deterministic network flow rate of the radio access network based on the performance characterization metric.”
However, Barchi discloses the missing feature “comprising: controlling a deterministic network configuration; executing one or more applications in accordance with the deterministic network configuration; determining a performance characterization metric; and adjusting a deterministic network flow rate of the radio access network based on the performance characterization metric.” ([¶ 0033]: “Outputs, e.g., NEC/path adjustment data, can comprise path alteration data 470 that can comprise data indicating an adjustment to a path between a UE and an NEC instance, instructions and/or signals to initiate and/or cause an adjustment to a path between a UE and an NEC instance, etc. NEC/path adjustment data can further comprise EPC alteration data 472 that can cause a change to an EPC component, for example, changing a priority of a signal and/or data being communicated via an EPC, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to adjust flow rate as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto further discloses the features of claim 2 ([¶ 0003]: “Patent Document 1 describes that application services can be largely categorized as those of the high-capacity (eMBB: enhanced Mobile BroadBand), the ultra-low latency (URLLC: Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications), and the multi-access (mMTC: massive Machine Type Communications) types, and discloses a mobile communication system architecture for each of these three types of services.” Wherein it is well known that these services involve receiving and transmitting data.)
Regarding claim 10, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto further discloses the features of claim 10 ([¶ 0003]: “Patent Document 1 describes that application services can be largely categorized as those of the high-capacity (eMBB: enhanced Mobile BroadBand), the ultra-low latency (URLLC: Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications), and the multi-access (mMTC: massive Machine Type Communications) types, and discloses a mobile communication system architecture for each of these three types of services.”; [¶ 0060]: “Additionally, MEC (Multi-access Edge Computing) 450 may be located in the site 410, the edge data center 420, the DC 431, and the RDC 432.”)
Regarding claim 11, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto further discloses the features of claim 11 ([¶ 0114]: “In this case, examples of the vehicles include moving vehicles such as automobiles, motorcycles, and robots, or unmanned aerial vehicles such as drones.”)
Regarding claim 12, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto further discloses the features of claim 11 ([¶ 0114]: “In this case, examples of the vehicles include moving vehicles such as automobiles, motorcycles, and robots, or unmanned aerial vehicles such as drones.”)
Regarding claim 15, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose the features of claim 15, but Barchi discloses these features. ([¶ 0039]: “The metrics can indicate performance of segments of the network path, e.g., KPIs for the components comprising the network path and can indicate values relating to characteristics, such as, jitter, latency, throughput, workload, bandwidth, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to utilize load as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose the features of claim 16, but Barchi discloses these features. ([¶ 0039]: “The metrics can indicate performance of segments of the network path, e.g., KPIs for the components comprising the network path and can indicate values relating to characteristics, such as, jitter, latency, throughput, workload, bandwidth, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to utilize latency as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 26, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose the features of claim 26, but Barchi discloses these features. ([¶ 0022]: “In some embodiments, adjustment of an NEC system can enable expanding or contracting of NEC instances.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to adjust processing rate as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 27, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose the features of claim 26, but Barchi discloses these features. ([¶ 0022]: “In some embodiments, adjustment of an NEC system can enable expanding or contracting of NEC instances.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to expand or throttle processing rate as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 28, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose the features of claim 28, but Barchi discloses these features. ([¶ 0022]: “In some embodiments, adjustment of an NEC system can enable expanding or contracting of NEC instances.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to modulate processing rate as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 31, Nazakoto discloses:
“A distributed unit in a communication system, comprising: an edge-enabled device comprising a communication data link, one or more processors, and at least one memory storing instructions, wherein: the communication system comprises a core network and a radio access network; the radio access network comprises a central unit communicatively coupled to (i) the core network via a backhaul network, and (ii) a plurality of distributed units including the distributed unit via a fronthaul network; and the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the edge- enabled device to perform operations” ([¶ 0078]: “In Placement 11 (see FIG. 4A), an RU, a DU, and a CU are placed at the site 410, a UPF is placed in the edge cloud 421, and an SMF and an AMF are placed at the data center 430. Additionally, in order to make the communication latency lower, some of the functions of the apps are placed at the site 410, and an MEC 450 at the site 410 is used.” Wherein the DC and edge cloud may reasonably be interpreted as core network, the connection between the CU and the DC/edge cloud may reasonably be interpreted be interpreted as backhaul because it is offsite, and the connection between the CU and DU may be reasonably interpreted as fronthaul because it is on site.)
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose “comprising: controlling a deterministic network configuration, executing one or more applications in accordance with the deterministic network configuration, determining a performance characterization metric, and adjusting a deterministic network flow rate of the radio access network based on the performance characterization metric.”
However, Barchi discloses the missing feature “comprising: controlling a deterministic network configuration; executing one or more applications in accordance with the deterministic network configuration; determining a performance characterization metric; and adjusting a deterministic network flow rate of the radio access network based on the performance characterization metric.” ([¶ 0033]: “Outputs, e.g., NEC/path adjustment data, can comprise path alteration data 470 that can comprise data indicating an adjustment to a path between a UE and an NEC instance, instructions and/or signals to initiate and/or cause an adjustment to a path between a UE and an NEC instance, etc. NEC/path adjustment data can further comprise EPC alteration data 472 that can cause a change to an EPC component, for example, changing a priority of a signal and/or data being communicated via an EPC, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto and Barchi, to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to adjust flow rate as disclosed by Barchi. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi (US 20240357412 A1) and further in view of Kleinbeck (US 20180070253 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nazakoto in view of Barchi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose the features of claim 4, but Kleinbeck discloses these features. ([¶ 0325]: “In one embodiment, the present invention provides a system for managing spectrum data for a radio frequency (RF) environment, including at least one node device and at least one remote device, wherein the at least one node device includes at least one receiver, an automatic signal detection (ASD) module, and a learning and conflict detection engine, wherein the at least one node device is at an edge of a communication network, wherein the at least one receiver is operable to process RF energy received from the RF environment, thereby generating processed data, wherein the processed data includes In-Phase and Quadrature (I/Q) data for at least one target bandwidth, wherein the learning and conflict detection engine is configured for conflict recognition and anomaly identification based on the processed data, and wherein the at least one node device is operable to communicate at least one report for the RF environment to the at least one remote device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto, Barchi, and Kleinbeck to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to process analog user data as disclosed by Kleinbeck. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi and Kleinbeck to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi (US 20240357412 A1), Kleinbeck (US 20180070253 A1), and further in view of Zhang (US 20190158340 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nazakoto in view of Barchi and Kleinbeck discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Kleinbeck further discloses “wherein: the analog user data is encoded in an in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) signal” as discussed in relation to the parent claim.
Nazakoto does not explicitly disclose “in accordance with one or more homomorphic processing functions”, but Zhang discloses these features. ([¶ 0391]: “The system can monitor a transient motion based on more than one (N>1) IQ features (e.g. speed+acceleration), by computing a non-linear mapping of the time stamps.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Nazakoto, Barchi, and Kleinbeck to modify the technique as disclosed by Nazakoto, to use homomorphic processing as disclosed by Kleinbeck. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nazakoto with Barchi and Kleinbeck to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 12-14, and 24-25 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, of the closest prior arts Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi (US 20240357412 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi do not disclose the additional features of claim 6. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 6 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 7 and 12-14 depend on claim 6 and contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence.
Regarding claim 24, of the closest prior arts Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi (US 20240357412 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Nazakoto (US 20240172003 A1) in view of Barchi do not disclose the additional features of claim 24. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 24 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 25 depends on claim 24 and contains allowable subject matter based on its dependence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights