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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on October 21, 2024. The preliminary amendment filed on the same day amended claims 1-9 and added new claims 17-20. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on October 21, 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length is less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehane et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20120275573 A1), hereinafter, Lehane.
Regarding claim 1:
Lehane teaches:
A network entity for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network entity to (Fig. 7B shows continuum orchestrator 702 (network entity). See paragraph 0240 for hardware detail of the continuum orchestrator 702 ):
receive a service specification (paragraph 0117 discloses receiving service policy (service specification). Paragraph 0117 also discloses service policy comprises service requirement (service specification));
generate a first control loop goal associated with a first management domain based at least in part on the received service specification (paragraph 0118 discloses generating domain specific service policy (first control loop goal) associated with UE domain 706 (first management domain) based on the received service policy. Also see paragraph 0187 stating “In an embodiment, the user may configure policies in terms of high-level goals or profiles.”); and
configure a closed control loop in accordance with the first control loop goal (paragraph 0119 discloses configuring the UE domain 706 as per the domain specific service policy. Paragraph 0056 discloses configuring includes creating a closed control loop. Also see paragraph 0080 stating “In an embodiment, the continuum orchestrator 302 may form a feedback control loop with one or more of the domain orchestrators 306a-e in which the monitoring and adjustment operations are repeated until the measured level of service is approximately equal to the intended level of service.”.).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to: generate a second control loop goal associated with a second management domain based at least in part on the received service specification; and transmit the second control loop goal to the second management domain (paragraph 0118 discloses generating domain specific service policy (second control loop goal) associated with mobile packet core domain 708 (second management domain). Fig. 7B , step 758, shows sending the domain specific service policy).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to: determine a partial service specification for a second management domain based at least in part on the received service specification; and transmit the partial service specification to the second management domain (paragraph 0118 discloses decomposing the service policy in to distinct subsets of service policies for different domains as stated “In block 754, the continuum orchestrator 702 may decompose the set of service policies 714 into three distinct subsets of service policies, and send one of these subsets to each of the user equipment domain 706 (in block 756), the mobile packet core domain 708 (in block 758), and the fixed line domain 710 (in block 760). Thus, the continuum orchestrator 702 effectively delegates service policies to each of the domains.” ).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to generate the first control loop goal from the received service specification in combination with network operator specified preferences, constraints, or requirements (paragraph 0117 discloses bandwidth and throughput requirement ).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the network operator specified preferences, constraints, or requirements are configured in a mapping table or a machine learning model, wherein one or both of the mapping table or the machine learning model correlates one or more parameters of the received service specification to the first control loop goal (paragraph 0160 discloses using machine leaning technique. Paragraph 0134 discloses correlating parameters. Also see paragraph 0205 discussing correlating parameters to create, modify service policy).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the machine learning model is trained based on historical information of a network associated with one or both of the first management domain or the second management domain (paragraph 0165 discloses using previous data for machine learning ).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to: send a request for one or more assurance goals to a management entity of the first management domain; receive information associated with the one or more assurance goals; and determine the first control loop goal based at least in part on the received information associated with the one or more assurance goals (paragraph 0167 discloses the UE domain reports quality parameters to the continuum orchestrator. Paragraph 0168 and 0169 disclose generation domain specific service policy based on the reported quality).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lehane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Lehane further teaches wherein the received service specification comprises a network slice type (NEST) specification, a network slice profile, a service type, a service profile, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0187 discloses service policy comprises service profile).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Zhang further teaches further comprising: obtaining one or both of the mapping table or, the machine learning model from an operator (paragraph 0221 disclose operator defines the parameters).
Claim 15 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a method performed by the apparatus of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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 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.
January 24, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444