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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract is not on a separate page; hence it is objected, and the applicant is reminded to use the above-mentioned guidelines.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 21, 24-25, 29, 30-31, 34-35, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaridas et al. (US 2021/0274387 A1), hereinafter Kousaridas, in view of Palanisamy et al. (US 2017/0150332 A1), hereinafter Palanisamy.
Regarding Claim 21:
Kousaridas teaches a network node comprising ([0167] “depending on the location of the P-QoS function, e.g., at the PCF 306 or the SMF 303 or as a new function”);
receive information for providing analytic information to a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the information comprising an indication of a type of analytic information to be provided to the WTRU ([0159] “sends a P-QoS activation request message to the device 100”; [0162] “One or more of the P-QoS subscription parameters”; [0148] “A specific prediction capability (e.g., QoS Change, out of coverage, 5G to LTE transition, etc.).”);
subscribe to receive the indicated type of analytic information ([0163] “initiates the monitoring activation/subscription procedure”; [0198] “The prediction subscription request message may include the type of the parameter that should be predicted by the recipient node”);
wherein the instance of the analytic information is delivered via a non-access stratum information if the network node determines to deliver the instance of the analytic information via the control plane and the instance of the analytic information is delivered via one or more of a user plane function (UPF) or an application function (AF) if the network node determines to deliver the instance of the analytic information via the data plane ([0230] “the notification may be sent either via the AF 110 or via the RAN interfaces (e.g., NAS, RRC)”);
send the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via one of the control plane or the user plane ([0226] “providing the notification from the device 100 and/or its P-QoS function 100 to the V2X application entity using either a control plane and/or a user plane messages”; [0230] “the notified destination node is the V2X application entity located at the UE 300”).
Kousaridas does not explicitly teach a reporting mode for the analytic information, the reporting mode indicating that the network node can dynamically determine a method for delivering the analytic information to the WTRU; determine whether to deliver an instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via a control plane or a user plane under that received reporting mode.
Palanisamy teaches a reporting mode for the analytic information, the reporting mode indicating that the network node can dynamically determine a method for delivering the analytic information to the WTRU ([0354] “the PCRF 334 responds with an ‘ADDS Policy Response’ message that provides the policy and charging details to be used for the application”; [0355] “Policy Information—Message scheduling, size and routing information”; [0132] “may also be used to dynamically control the path that is to be selected for ADDS message transfer”);
determine whether to deliver an instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via a control plane or a user plane ([0126] “selecting the transport mechanism/path to be used for transporting a given ADDS message”; [0134] “some control plane transport mechanism, such as NAS or RRC, is selected for this application” and “selection of the user plane as the transport mechanism to use for this message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kousaridas’s analytics service using Palanisamy’s processor and received routing policy as the reporting mode, applying its selector to the NAS and AF notification paths to avoid congested delivery paths as conditions change (Palanisamy [0134]).
Regarding Claim 24: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21.
Kousaridas further teaches information collected by one or more network functions (NFs) ([0174] General information per node (BS, UPF) or per link (e.g., N3 in 5G) that can be retrieved via the NWDAF or directly via the corresponding network node (e.g., average cell load, average bit rate, reliability, load, coverage information)).
Kousaridas does not explicitly teach determine whether to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane based on information collected by one or more network functions (NFs).
Palanisamy teaches determine whether to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane based on information collected by one or more network functions (NFs) ([0130] “The ADDS entity 322 in the network may select a transport mechanism/path based on the availability of the 3GPP core network nodes”; [0134] “the control plane transport mechanisms, such as SMS, NAS, or RRC, are particularly congested at the moment, thus resulting in the selection of the user plane as the transport mechanism to use for this message.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kousaridas’s NF-collected network-condition information as an input to Palanisamy’s transport selector when delivering Kousaridas’s analytics notifications, to avoid unavailable or congested delivery paths (Palanisamy [0130], [0134]).
Regarding Claim 25: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 24.
Kousaridas does not explicitly teach determine whether to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane based on one or more policy and charging control (PCC) rules.
Palanisamy teaches determine wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane based on one or more policy and charging control (PCC) rules ([0132] “the policy and charging information from the Policy and Charging Control (PCC) function of the core network (which includes the OCS 330, OFCS 332, and PCRF 334) may also be used to dynamically control the path that is to be selected for ADDS message transfer”; [0355] “Policy Information—Message scheduling, size and routing information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Palanisamy’s PCC routing policy together with the collected NF information in the combined analytics-delivery selector so that notifications follow the operator’s routing requirements (Palanisamy [0132], [0354]–[0355]).
Regarding Claim 29: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21.
Kousaridas further teaches an exchange of information between the WTRU and the AF ([0230], Fig. 7a: “the notified destination node is the V2X application entity located at the UE 300” and “the notification may be sent either via the AF 110 or via the RAN interfaces”; [0228] “The notification response may be, for example, ACK, NACK, negotiation of the parameters, etc.”).
Kousaridas does not explicitly teach determine whether to use the to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane based on an exchange of information between the WTRU and the AF.
Palanisamy teaches the exchange-based transport-selection mechanism for determine whether to use the to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane based on an exchange of information between the WTRU and the AF ([0247] “the SCS in its response can change the application details like the delay tolerance time of the application, application availability time, and the like”; [0276] “The field contains application characteristics and details. This can be used by the ADDS for data scheduling and transport mechanism/path selection purposes.”). Paragraphs [0134]–[0136] describe selecting control-plane or user-plane transport according to application/message characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Palanisamy’s application-registration exchange to Kousaridas’s WTRU and AF, using the exchanged analytics-notification application requirements in transport selection, so that delivery accommodates the application’s delay and message-size requirements (Palanisamy [0276], [0281]–[0283]).
Regarding Claim 30: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21.
Kousaridas further teaches the WTRU-ID alternative of wherein the information exchanged between the WTRU and the AF comprises one or more an application identifier (ID), a WTRU ID, analytics information, measurement information, one or more reporting anchor network functions (NFs), a reporting type, one or more target notification endpoints, or a notification correlation ID ([0227] “The notification may be, for example, the service ID, the V2X-UE ID, the QoS parameter”; [0230] “the notified destination node is the V2X application entity located at the UE 300” and “the notification may be sent either via the AF 110 or via the RAN interfaces”; Fig. 7a shows the notification and response between AF 110 and UE 300). The V2X-UE ID corresponds to the claimed WTRU ID).
Claims 31, 34, 35, 39, and 40 recite the method counterparts of claims 21, 24, 25, 29, and 30, respectively, and are rejected under the same reasoning because they recite the corresponding operations as method steps.
Claims 22, 23, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaridas and Palanisamy, and further in view of ETSI TS 123 288 V16.6.0 (January 2021), hereinafter TS 23.288.
Regarding Claim 22: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21.
Kousaridas does not explicitly teach the congestion-based selection recited in use the network congestion information or WTRU mobility information to determine whether to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane; the congestion-subscription alternative of subscribe to receive one or more of network congestion information or WTRU mobility information.
Palanisamy teaches the congestion-based selection recited in use the network congestion information or WTRU mobility information to determine whether to deliver the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU via the control plane or the user plane ([0134] “the control plane transport mechanisms, such as SMS, NAS, or RRC, are particularly congested at the moment, thus resulting in the selection of the user plane as the transport mechanism to use for this message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Palanisamy to the teaching of Kousaridas to avoid congested delivery paths as conditions change (Palanisamy [0134]).
Kousaridas and Palanisamy do not explicitly teach the congestion-subscription alternative of subscribe to receive one or more of network congestion information or WTRU mobility information.
TS 23.288 teaches the congestion-subscription alternative of subscribe to receive one or more of network congestion information or WTRU mobility information (§6.8.4.2, step 10, p. 58: “The NF sends Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe Request to the NWDAF.”; step 15, p. 58: “The NWDAF provides the analytics for user data congestion status information to the NF.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TS 23.288’s congestion subscription to supply updated congestion information to the combined node’s delivery selector so that analytics notifications avoid congested delivery paths (TS 23.288 §6.8.4.2, steps 18–20).
Regarding Claim 23: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21
Kousaridas and Palanisamy do not explicitly teach the traffic-pattern alternative of wherein the analytic information comprises one or more of a predicted level load on a network slice used for an artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning) application, a predicted end-to-end available bandwidth, a level of end-to-end jitter for downlink or uplink, or a traffic pattern.
TS 23.288 teaches the traffic-pattern alternative of wherein the analytic information comprises one or more of a predicted level load on a network slice used for an artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning) application, a predicted end-to-end available bandwidth, a level of end-to-end jitter for downlink or uplink, or a traffic pattern (§6.7.3.3, p. 42: “The NWDAF supporting UE Communication Analytics provides the analytics results to consumer NFs.”; Table 6.7.3.3-1, p. 42: “Identifies whether the UE communicates periodically or not.” and “Interval Time of periodic communication (average and variance) if periodic.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deliver TS 23.288’s communication-pattern analytics through the combined WTRU-notification service so the receiving application can anticipate communication timing and plan data transfers (TS 23.288 §6.7.3.3, Table 6.7.3.3-1).
Claims 32 and 33 recite the method counterparts of claims 22 and 23, respectively, and are rejected under the same reasoning because they recite the corresponding operations as method steps.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaridas and Palanisamy, and further in view of Ong et al. (US 2022/0083906 A1), hereinafter Ong.
Regarding Claim 26: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21
Kousaridas and Palanisamy do not explicitly teach the model-distribution mechanism for sending an artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) model to the WTRU, wherein a plurality of WTRUs comprises the WTRU, and wherein at least the plurality of WTRUs comprises a global model of the AI/ML model.
Ong teaches the model-distribution mechanism for sending an artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) model to the WTRU ([0032] “The tree boosting aggregator 110 is further configured to transmit the machine learning model 120 and an epsilon hyperparameter to the parties 150.”; [0058], [0062] the disclosed methods may be implemented using computer systems including “telephone, smartphone”);
wherein a plurality of WTRUs comprises the WTRU ([0029], Fig. 1 identifies parties 150-1, 150-2, and 150-N; [0032] “party 150-1 can train the machine learning model 120 transmitted to it by the tree boosting aggregator 110”);
and wherein at least the plurality of WTRUs comprise a global model of the AI/ML model ([0003] “generate a global model shared by all nodes”; [0053] “The rebuilt machine learning model and the epsilon hyperparameters can be transmitted to the parties 150, where the parties 150 can train and test the machine learning model 120.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Ong’s participating devices as WTRUs and distribute its shared model through the combined analytics-delivery service, retaining its transport selection, so that participating WTRUs can train the model using their respective local datasets (Ong [0032], [0053]).
Claim 36 recites the method counterpart of claim 26 and is rejected under the same reasoning because it recites the corresponding operations as method steps.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaridas and Palanisamy, and further in view of ETSI TS 123 502 V16.8.0 (April 2021), hereinafter TS 23.502.
Regarding Claim 27: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21.
Kousaridas further teaches the analytic information enabling a UE-side QoS response ([0230] “the notified destination node is the V2X application entity located at the UE 300”; [0232] “a negotiation of the QoS values between the network side and the V2X application entity may be initiated”).
Kousaridas and Palanisamy do not explicitly teach the PDU-session/QoS alternative of modify a packet data unit (PDU) session to modify one or more quality of service (QoS) related parameters.
TS 23.502 teaches the UE-initiated procedure for modify a packet data unit (PDU) session to modify one or more quality of service (QoS) related parameters (§4.3.3.2, step 1a, printed p. 114: “The UE initiates the PDU Session Modification procedure by the transmission of an NAS message”; step 1a, printed p. 115: “When the UE requests specific QoS handling for selected SDF(s), the PDU Session Modification Request includes Packet Filters describing the SDF(s), the requested Packet Filter Operation (add, modify, delete) on the indicated Packet Filters, the Requested QoS and optionally a Segregation indication.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the notified UE application’s QoS negotiation using TS 23.502’s UE-initiated PDU-session modification procedure, so that session QoS can be adjusted to the predicted network conditions (TS 23.502 §4.3.3.2, step 1a).
Claim 37 recites the method counterpart of claim 27 and is rejected under the same references and reasoning because it recites the corresponding operations as method steps.
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaridas and Palanisamy, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 2021/0083956 A1), hereinafter Fan.
Regarding Claim 28: Kousaridas and Palanisamy teach the network node of claim 21.
Kousaridas further teaches delivery of the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU ([0230] “the notified destination node is the V2X application entity located at the UE 300”; “the notification may be sent either via the AF 110 or via the RAN interfaces”).
Kousaridas and Palanisamy do not explicitly teach subscribe to a set of information to determine one or more anchor network functions (NFs) to use to send the instance of the analytic information to the WTRU.
Fan teaches subscribe to a set of information ([0113] “This procedure is used by SMF to subscribe/unsubscribe at NWDAF to be notified on UPF related analytics or/and statistics information (e.g. load level information).”), and using the subscribed information to select a UPF ([0022] “The analytics of the load of the UPF may be used for selection of UPF.”; [0158] “In order to optimize the selection of UPF by SMF, two new procedures has been proposed for service subscription and on demand service type.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fan’s subscription-based UPF selection to Kousaridas’s SMF implementation, selecting the UPF serving the AF-to-WTRU notification session as the delivery anchor, to reduce the risk of selecting an overloaded delivery path (Fan [0007], [0158]).
Claim 38 recites the method counterpart of claim 28 and is rejected under the same references and reasoning because it recites the corresponding operations as method steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights