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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
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 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Puente Pestana (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0351993 A1) in view of Lee et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0322821 A1).
As to claim 1, Puente Pestana teaches a method for reporting a service capacity load parameter (pars. 0007-0009, table 1), comprising: receiving a subscription message sent by the NWDAF and used for acquiring the service capacity load parameter (figure 4, pars. 0045-0047, figure 6, pars. 0059-0060, 0073-0076, receiving a request for service capabilities and load information); determining the service capacity load parameter according to the subscription message; and reporting the service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF (pars. 0009-0011, figures 4-6, pars. 0064-0067 & 0077-0081, providing report of service capabilities and load information).
However, Puente Pestana does not teach that issuing, to a network data analysis function (NWDAF), a statistical capability and a reporting capability corresponding to a service capacity load parameter.
Lee et al teach a method for reporting a service capacity load parameter (pars. 0133-0135, 0280-0283), comprising: issuing, to a network data analysis function (NWDAF), a statistical capability and a reporting capability corresponding to a service capacity load parameter (pars. 0062, 0066, 0122, 0130, 0246, 0249, using statistics and predictions to generate service capability report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee et al as stated above with the method of Puente Pestana for generating service capacity report using statistics and predictions because it would have provided improved and secure service between client/terminal and server/network and also improved system capability to provide efficient service.
As to claim 2, Puente Pestana teaches that determining the service capacity load parameter according to the subscription message comprises: determining, according to the subscription message, the type of the service capacity load parameter to be counted; counting, at every preset first time interval, the number of service resources being currently used by each virtual network function component (VNFC) corresponding to the type; and determining the service capacity load parameter according to the number of the service resources (figures 13-14, pars. 0124-0131).
As to claim 3, Puente Pestana teaches that determining the service capacity load parameter according to the number of the service resources comprises: in a case that there is a software license, and a software licensing capability of the license is less than an actual hardware capability, determining a ratio of the number of service resources to the software licensing capability as the service capacity load parameter; and in a case that there is no license or the software licensing capability is greater than the actual hardware capability, determining the ratio of the number of service resources to the actual hardware capability as the service capacity load parameter (pars. 0009-0011, 0045-0048, 0126-0131).
As to claim 4, Puente Pestana teaches that reporting the service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF comprises: reporting the service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF every second time interval, the second time interval being determined according to the subscription message (pars. 000-0011, 0048, 0077-0079).
As to claim 5, Puente Pestana teaches that reporting the service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF comprises: in a case that there is a service capacity load parameter, reporting the service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF; and in a case that there are a plurality of service capacity load parameters, reporting the plurality of service capacity load parameters to the NWDAF according to a preset reporting policy (pars. 0004-0005, figure 6, pars. 0059-0067).
As to claim 6, Puente Pestana teaches that reporting the plurality of service capacity load parameters to the NWDAF according to the preset reporting policy comprises one of the following: reporting the plurality of service capacity load parameters to the NWDAF; reporting a service capacity load parameter with the highest load to the NWDAF; and reporting a pre-designated service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF (pars. 0009-0011, figure 4, pars. 0046-0048, figure 6, pars. 0077-0081).
As to claim 7, Lee et al teach that issuing, to the NWDAF, the statistical capability and the reporting capability corresponding to the service capacity load parameter comprises: issuing the statistical capability and the reporting capability directly to the NWDAF; or issuing the statistical capability and the reported capability to the NWDAF by means of a network exposure function (NEF) or a network repository function (NRF) (pars. 0062-0066, figure 3, pars. 0270-0275).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee et al as stated above with the method of Puente Pestana for generating service capacity report using statistics and predictions because it would have provided improved and secure service between client/terminal and server/network and also improved system capability to provide efficient service.
As to claim 8, Puente Pestana teaches that after receiving a subscription message sent by the NWDAF and used for acquiring the service capacity load parameter, the method further comprises: receiving an unsubscription message sent by the NWDAF; and stopping determining and reporting the service capacity load parameter according to the unsubscription message (figure 5, pars. 0053-0057).
As to claims 10 and 12-16, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-6 above, since claims 10 and 12-16 are merely a program product for the method of operations defined for the claims 1-6, and claims 10 and 12-16 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-6.
As to claims 11 and 17-19, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-4 above, since claims 11 and 17-19 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined for the claims 1-4, and claims 11 and 17-19 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-4.
As to claim 20, Lee et al teach that the statistical capability referring to the statistical type of the service capacity load parameter, and the reporting capability referring to a reporting time interval of the service capacity load parameter (pars. 0062-0066, 0227-0228, 0233, 0246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee et al as stated above with the method of Puente Pestana for generating service capacity report using statistics and predictions because it would have provided improved and secure service between client/terminal and server/network and also improved system capability to provide efficient service.
As to claim 21, Lee et al teach that issuing the statistical capability and the reported capability to the NWDAF by means of a network exposure function (NEF) or a network repository function (NRF) comprises: issuing the statistical capability and report capability corresponding to the service capacity load parameter to the NEF or NRF, and forwarding the statistical capability and report capability corresponding to the service capacity load parameter to the NWDAF by the NEF or NRF (pars. 0062-0066, figure 3, pars. 0270-0275).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee et al as stated above with the method of Puente Pestana for generating service capacity report using statistics and predictions because it would have provided improved and secure service between client/terminal and server/network and also improved system capability to provide efficient service.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a computer program per se. Claims 10 and 12-16 recited “A computer non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is configured to cause, when executed by a processor, the processor to perform the method,” which discloses that the computer program executes by a processor to perform the method of claims 10 and 12-16, but the computer program product does not positively recited the intended steps perform by the processor; and claims 11 and 17-19 recited “An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform the method,” which discloses that the computer program executes by a processor to performs the method of claims 11 and 17-19, and the electronic device is not positively recited in the claims 11 and 17-19 their intended components and the steps perform by the electronic device. Accordingly, the claims 10-19 are directed towards program per se.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Li et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0282003 A1.
b. Narath et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0219179 A1.
c. Samdanis et al, U.S. Patent No. 12,289,659 B2.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453January 20, 2024