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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Amended claims 1-6, 8, and 10-21 are pending and remain for further examination.
The New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the claims 1-6, 8, and 10-21 filed on April 28, 2026 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new modified rejection is made in view of same references. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new modified rejection (103) and the new grounds of rejection (112).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-6, 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 (figure 3, pars. 0008-0011, table 1, reporting analytics information including load level information, which is requested service capability), comprising: receiving a subscription message sent by the NWDAF and used for acquiring the service capacity load parameter (pars. 0008-0011, figure 4, pars. 0045-0047, figure 6, pars. 0058-0059, 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. 0008-0011, figures 4-6, pars. 0064-0067 & 0077-0081, providing report of service capabilities and load information).
However, Puente Pestana does not teach that issuing, directly to a network data analysis function (NWDAF), a statistical capability and a reporting capability corresponding to a service capacity load parameter, or issuing the statistical capability and the reporting capability to the NWDAF by means of a network exposure function (NEF) or a network repository function (NRF).
Lee et al teach a method for reporting a service capacity load parameter (pars. 0118-0120, 0130-0135, 0280-0283, reporting capability of network functions), comprising: issuing, directly 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, 0242-0252, using statistics and predictions to generate service capability report); 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, 0121-0124, 0130-0135, figure 3, pars. 0270-0279, NEF or NRF generating service capability report and sending/notifying to the NWDAF).
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 and sending 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 (pars. 0008-0011, figures 4-6, pars. 0064-0067 & 0077-0081, providing report of service capabilities and load information),
comprises: determining, according to the subscription message, the type of the service capacity load parameter to be counted (figure 4, pars. 0043-0052, determining type of service capability); 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 6-7, pars. 0080-0084, figures 14-15, pars. 0129-0136, number of network functions use/count by the virtual nodes and determine service capacity and load information).
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 is 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 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 12-16 recited “A computer non-transitory readable storage medium, … to perform the steps of method…,” which are program product claims (10 & 12-16) dependent on the method claims (1-6); and the method of steps are not positively recited in the claims 10 and 12-16, which are intended processes/steps for claimed invention; therefore, the claims 10 and 12-16 are being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 17-19 recited “An electronic device, … to perform the steps of method…,” which are apparatus claims (11 & 17-19) dependent on the method claims (1-4); and the method of steps are not positively recited in the claims 11 and 17-19, which are intended processes/steps for claimed invention; therefore, the claims 11 and 17-19 are being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the claims 1-6, 8, and 10-21 filed on April 28, 2026 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new modified rejection is made in view of same references. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new modified rejection (103) and the new grounds of rejection (112).
The examiner has attempted to answer (response) to the remarks (arguments) in the body of the Office Action (see new rejection of claims 1-2).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Karake et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0064510 A1.
b. Ianev et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,463,978 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 2453June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights