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 .
Miklos et al., US 20160359750 A1 (hereafter referred to as Miklos) – p. 111, “the background traffic gets a lower share already at low congestion level, but it is completely stopped at medium congestion level to allow for more important traffic to pass through. OTT video is allowed a higher throughput at low and medium congestion levels, but at high congestion that is stopped in this example to allow more important traffic, such as the operator provided video application, to pass through. Premium subscribers get a higher throughput share in all congestion levels than normal subscribers.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 15, 18, 26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski et al., US 20200107212 A1 (hereafter referred to as Zielinski) in view of Baglin et al., US 20220210688 A1 (hereafter referred to as Baglin).
A. Claim 26, Zielinski teaches a network node operating in a communications network, the network node comprising:
processing circuitry (p. 95, “… one or more central processing units (CPU) …”); and memory coupled to the processing circuitry (p. 95, “… [T]he machine is implemented on a computer platform having hardware such as … a random access memory (RAM), and input/output (I/O) interface(s).”) and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause (p. 95, “The application program may be uploaded to and executed by a machine comprising any suitable architecture.” “The computer platform also includes an operating system and microinstruction code.”) the communication device to:
determine a service level prediction (p. 41, “The method comprises sending from the communication device a quality of service prediction request message, also called QoS prediction request message or QPREQ, to a communication service prediction server, predicting the quality of service in the communication service prediction server…”);
generate an intent based on the service level prediction (p. 83, “It is the task of the QoS prediction function block 1610 to forecast the QoS parameters for a planned V2V or V2X or V2N communication and inform the requesting vehicle accordingly.” And p. 90, “The communication service prediction server 220 responds to the requesting vehicle with a QoS prediction request acknowledge message QPREQACK. This acknowledge message may include an update condition with which the service prediction server 220 announces under which conditions the server would accept an updated QoS prediction request message QPREQ of the same vehicle.” See also p. 93, “FIG. 7 shows the message format for the QoS prediction response message QPRSP. Reference number QPRSPH denotes the message header. Again, this header includes entries for the message type and the UE address to which this message is directed. The first field CLID in payload section includes the same entries as in the CLID field of the QoS prediction request message QPREQ. The field PLC lists the predicted link capacities, i.e. a predicted latency, a predicted data rate, a predicted throughput or the like for the different links.”); and
Zielinski does not specifically teach assign the intent to a set of intents used by the communications network (p. 83, “The resulting predicted QoS parameters will be transferred back to the requesting vehicle via line 1611. The requesting vehicle then can decide for which planned communication type it would like to reserve resources.” And p. 90, “Later in time the communication service prediction server 220 sends a QoS prediction response message QPRSP to either the original QoS prediction request message QPREQ or the updated QoS prediction request message QPREQU.” Equivalent later response to later updated request. See also p. 90, “This acknowledge message may include an update condition with which the service prediction server 220 announces under which conditions the server would accept an updated QoS prediction request message QPREQ of the same vehicle.”). However, in the same field of endeavor, Baglin teaches assign the intent to a set of intents used by the communications network (p. 165, “In response to the reception of a subscription request specifying a target Quality of Service QoStarget (step 700), the list of a priori predicted Quality of Service levels (or estimated over a future time period) is determined, in step 702, for at least one of the Quality of Service information items specified in the subscription request (for example, target QoS, nominal QoS, etc.). The prediction step can be carried out by the network core 5, for example.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski to incorporate the plurality intents from Baglin for the predicted response from Zielinski as improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to provide a plurality of predications and thereby enable adjustments at a future time when requested by a user device.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the system of claim 30 above. Claim 1 is rejected on a similar rationale.
B. Claim 30, Zielinski teaches a communication device operating in a communications network, the network node (p. 82, “The prediction function may be implemented in a backend server or located in the core of a mobile radio network …”) comprising:
processing circuitry (p. 60, “When provided by a processor, the functions may be provided by a single dedicated processor,…”); and memory coupled to the processing circuitry (p. 60, “read only memory (ROM) for storing software, random access memory (RAM), and nonvolatile storage …”) and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry (p. 60, ““The functions of the various elements shown in the figures may be provided by the use of dedicated hardware as well as hardware capable of executing software in association with appropriate software.”) to cause the communication device to:
request a service level prediction from a network node in the communications network (p. 41, “The method comprises sending from the communication device a quality of service prediction request message, also called QoS prediction request message or QPREQ, to a communication service prediction server, predicting the quality of service in the communication service prediction server…”);
receive the service level prediction from the network node (p. 87, “the prediction function block 1610 may perform the prediction function on different levels, one may be the link level where it will be determined which communication link provides which quality of service level. Second, the prediction function block 1610 may perform the prediction function on the system level, where resource blocks are pre-allocated and where it will be determined what the estimated QoS parameter values such as block error rate/packet error rate, end to end latency, throughput, etc. are.” And p. 90, “Later in time the communication service prediction server 220 sends a QoS prediction response message QPRSP to either the original QoS prediction request message QPREQ or the updated QoS prediction request message QPREQU.”).
Zielinski does not specifically teach performing an action based on the service level prediction. Zielinski teaches in the abstract, “The communication device can thus decide if the predicted QoS is sufficient for the planned activity and may take a decision to either start the activity, postpone the activity or alter the activity.” And p. 91, “In the following ST field an entry about the start time is transported, i.e. the time or time period which the user has entered when he wants to start the route.” Zielinski suggests an action but does not specifically teach performing an action based on the service level prediction. However, in the same field of endeavor, Baglin teaches perform an action based on the service level prediction (p. 166, “In step 708, a dedicated connection (“bearer”) is requested for the target QoS specified in the subscription request (for example, by the application server 6 or by the geoservice), … The bearer can be a new dedicated radio bearer (for example, in an LTE cellular network) or a traffic flow (in a 5G cellular network).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski to incorporate actions based on service level prediction from Baglin to improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to establish connections to services based on the prediction when the user reaches the route within the validity time.
Claim 18 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the communication device of claim 30 above. Claim 18 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 2, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the service level prediction comprises a service level prediction associated with at least one of:
a communication device; a geographical area; a coverage area associated with a base station; and a route (Zielinski, p. 43, “the present discussion concerns the idea that the QoS prediction request message (QPREQ) comprises in a payload section information entries for at least a planned travel route of the communication device and the communication link capacity requirements of a service the communication device is planning to make use of, wherein the payload section may optionally include an information entry for the planned starting time.”).
Claim 3, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the intent comprises a conditional intent that is only valid until a condition is met (Zielinski, p. 47, “a validity time for the QoS prediction and a service start time for which the prediction is valid.” ), the method further comprising:
responsive to determining that the condition is met, removing the intent from the set of intents (Zielinski, p. 52, “the channel modelling prediction block, the communication cell localization block, and the surroundings prediction block may have inputs for the information about the planned travel route and the planned starting time of the requesting communication device.” After the start time the QOS level is invalidated and no longer a response.”).
Claim 4, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein the condition comprises at least one of:
a spatial condition; a temporal condition (Zielinski, p. 47, “a validity time for the QoS prediction and a service start time for which the prediction is valid.”); and a condition that a predetermined application ends.
Claim 5, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the service level prediction is associated with a predicted route of a communication device (Zielinski, p. 48, “a QoS prediction function block and a communication cell localization block for determining the communication cells along the planned travel route for which the QoS prediction function block shall predict the QoS.”), and wherein generating the intent comprises generating the intent to indicate that the communication device be prioritized as long as the communication device moves along the predicted route (Zielinski, p. 91, “In the field TR the planned travel route will be entered. In one embodiment it could be in the form of a GPS track.”).
Claim 6, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 5, further comprising:
identifying one or more network nodes with coverage areas associated with the predicted route of the communication device (Zielinski, p. 51, “the apparatus further comprises a surroundings prediction block that predicts the surroundings of the communication device when travelling along the planned travel route…” “This block may make extensive use of corresponding detailed maps. But also it may make use of information from other vehicles equipped with surroundings observation sensors.”),
wherein the set of intents are associated with the one or more network nodes (Zielinski, p. 41, “the present disclosure provides a method for predicting a quality of service for a communication about at least one communication link of at least one communication device.” And p. 50, “the apparatus further comprises a traffic flow prediction block that predicts the amount of other communication devices in the region along the planned travel route, where said traffic flow prediction block is connected with the channel modelling prediction block in order to inform the channel modelling prediction block about the traffic density and thus about the load on the channel for which the channel model will be predicted.”).
Claim 9, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the service level prediction comprises at least one of:
an bandwidth; an latency; a packet loss rate (Zielinski, p. 87, “the prediction function block 1610 may perform the prediction function on different levels, one may be the link level where it will be determined which communication link provides which quality of service level.” And “… what the estimated QoS parameter values such as block error rate/packet error rate, end to end latency, throughput, etc. are.”); and a basic service availability. Baglin teaches the service level prediction comprises at least one of: an assured bandwidth; an latency; a packet loss rate; and a basic service availability (p. 66, “. The Quality of Service is made up of an n-tuple of performance indicators, depending on the executed V2X application.” And p. 67, the key performance indicators (KPIs) of latency and or availability. See also p. 148, “the QoS information specified in the subscription request (QoS required by the vehicle 2) can be represented by QoS descriptors, these QoS descriptors can comprise other information relating to the QoS, such as: [0149] information indicating whether the target QoS must or must not be guaranteed …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski to incorporate assured QOS from Baglin to improve the effectiveness of the projections. The motivation would have been to improve the reliability of the predictions.
Claim 15, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: using the set of intents to configure network resources (Zielinski, p. 83, “The resulting predicted QoS parameters will be transferred back to the requesting vehicle via line 1611. The requesting vehicle then can decide for which planned communication type it would like to reserve resources.”).
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski and Baglin as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Jung et al., US 20210306886 A1 (hereafter referred to as Jung).
Claim 20, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 18 as cited above. Zielinski-Baglin does not specifically teach determining a likelihood of the service level prediction being met. However, Jung teach determining a likelihood of the service level prediction being met (p., 192, “For instance, the QoS prediction results may include the probability that the required QoS that is collective QoS indicative is satisfied or the probability that the required QoS is not satisfied.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to incorporate likelihood of meeting the prediction from … tor improve system effectiveness the motivation would have been to give user an opportunity to compare or reconsider requests.
Claim 22, Zielinski-Baglin- Jung teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the network node is a first network node of a first communications network (brief connection to node issuing predictions), and wherein performing the action based on the service level prediction comprises: responsive to determining the likelihood of the service level prediction being met (Jung, “(p., 192, “For instance, the QoS prediction results may include the probability that the required QoS that is collective QoS indicative is satisfied or the probability that the required QoS is not satisfied.”), disconnecting from the first network node (disconnecting from prediction system); and connecting to a second network node of a second communications network (Connecting to service at time correlated to prediction.)
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski and Baglin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nimbavikar et al., US 20200068446 A1 (hereafter referred to as Nimbavikar).
Claim 7, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the service level prediction is associated with a first communication device of a plurality of communication devices that are each assigned a service category (Baglin, p. 39-40, “Each vehicle 2 can be equipped with a communication device 20 configured to allow relative communication with one or more V2X applications: between the vehicle 2 and an application server 6 distributing the V2X service to the receiver devices 3 via a cellular communication network 1 …”).
Zielinski-Baglin does not specifically teach wherein the first communication device is assigned to a first service category; and wherein the intent comprises a soft intent that indicates that the communication device have a higher priority than other communication devices in the first service category and a lower priority than communication devices in a second service category. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nimbavikar teaches wherein the first communication device is assigned to a first service category (p. 9, “selecting a QoS can be based at least in part on the user profile information (e.g., indicating a priority level associated with a user and/or device), a communication type (e.g., voice, text, video, data, etc.), a state of the network (e.g., congestion, delay, etc.), and the like.” Interpreting communication type as service category.); and
wherein the intent comprises a soft intent that indicates that the communication device have a higher priority than other communication devices in the first service category and a lower priority than communication devices in a second service category (p. 41, “if the UE 202 is a highest priority level subscriber device performing video streaming and the UE 204 is a medium priority level making a voice call, the UEs 202 and 204 may receive the same QoS (e.g., when no congestion is present). In a case where congestion is detected (or any other appropriate consideration for QoS), the UE 202 may maintain a same QoS or may be downgraded before a QoS associated with the UE 204 is downgraded.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to incorporate from service categories and priorities from Nimbavikar to improve effectiveness for adjusting network intents and thereby providing services of different types according to the resources available within the network.
Claim 10, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the service level prediction comprises the assured bandwidth, the method further comprising:
determining an assured bandwidth value based on the service level prediction (Baglin, p. 149-150, “information indicating whether the target QoS must or must not be guaranteed; and/or the maximum flow over the uplink and/or over the downlink if the target QoS must be guaranteed”). Zielinski-Baglin does not specifically teach notifying a Policy Control Function, PCF, in the communications network of the assured bandwidth value. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nimbavikar teaches notifying a Policy Control Function, PCF, in the communications network of the assured bandwidth value (p. 23, “the PCF 110 can be implemented as a network function including functionality to support unified policy framework to govern network behavior, provide policy rules to control plane functions and/or enforce such rules…” And p. 28, “the UE 102 can send a resource request to the base station 104 associated with RAN 106. In some instances, the resource request can include identity information 122 stored on the UE 102. The RAN 106 can send a request, based at least in part on the identity information 122, to the PCF 110.” See also p. 49, “QoS enforcement component 310” will enforce the guarantees.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to incorporate PCF enforcement for the intention levels to improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to provide seamless guaranteed resources for users with subscriptions.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinksi and Braglin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al., US 20220060942 A1 (hereafter referred to as Jeon).
Claim 8, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, as cited above. Zielinski-Baglin does not specifically teach determining that the service level prediction will not be met; and
responsive to determining that the service level prediction will not be met, transmitting a message to a device associated with the service level prediction indicating that the service level prediction will not be met. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jeon teaches determining that the service level prediction will not be met (p. 78, “The first network node 100 is further configured to at least one of: when the one or more QoS requirements will not be met in a core network 610, transmit a first QoS notification 602 to a second network node 300”); and responsive to determining that the service level prediction will not be met, transmitting a message to a device associated with the service level prediction indicating that the service level prediction will not be met (p. 78, “The first network node 100 is further configured to at least one of: when the one or more QoS requirements will not be met in a core network 610, transmit a first QoS notification 602 to a second network node 300, wherein the first QoS notification 602 indicates that the one or more QoS requirements will not be met in the core network (610).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to incorporate indicating unmet service level predictions from Jeon to improve effectiveness and prevent the client associated with the service request from waiting time for network resources.
Claim 12, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 1, as cited above. Zielinski-Baglin does not specifically teach wherein generating the intent comprises generating the intent based on the service level prediction and a priority of the service level prediction. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nambavikar teaches wherein generating the intent comprises generating the intent based on the service level prediction and a priority of the service level prediction (p. 38, “the UEs 202, 204, and 206 can be assigned a respective QoS based on a subscriber level (e.g., low priority, medium priority, high priority, and the like).”) .
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski and Baglin as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kadel, US 20130035083 A1(hereafter referred to as Kadel).
Claim 16, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein using the set of intents to configure network resources as cited above. Zielinski-Baglin teaches does not specifically teach determining that the service level prediction will not be met; and responsive to determining that the service level prediction will not be met, prioritizing the intent such that the service level prediction is met. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kadel teaches determining that the service level prediction will not be met (p. 11, “c) determining the current and predicting the future capacity situation of the mobile communication network” And p. 15, “d) dynamically adapting network and service parameters associated with the mobile communication system based on the current and predicted position of the vehicle and on the current and predicted future capacity situation of the mobile communication network.”); and responsive to determining that the service level prediction will not be met, prioritizing the intent such that the service level prediction is met (p. 84, “Change of priorities in the schedulers at the base stations in order to provide sufficient resources to the users in the vehicles. This mechanism will be controlled by the dynamic service, traffic and capacity prediction and management in a base station overarching manner and may overwrite the scheduling priorities and mechanism which are applied normally under the control of a single base station (‘meta scheduling’).)” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to incorporate managing resources using priorities from Kadel to improve the likelihood of having resources for higher priority requestors. The motivation would expand the levels for subscribers.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski and Baglin as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Joly et al., US 20220396288 A1 (hereafter referred to as Joly).
Claim 23, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 18, wherein the service level prediction is associated with a predicted route of the communication device wherein performing the action based on the service level prediction (Zielinski, p. 43, “the present discussion concerns the idea that the QoS prediction request message (QPREQ) comprises in a payload section information entries for at least a planned travel route of the communication device and the communication link capacity requirements for a service the communication device is planning to make use of…”) comprises at least one of:
moving along the route (Zielinski, p. 49, “When the communication device is moving along the travel route, the channel model changes with time and position. Therefore, the best way to adapt the prediction function correspondingly is supplying the prediction function with a channel model profile comprising different channel model for different times and places.”).
Zielinski-Baglin does not specifically teach adjusting the route based on the likelihood of the service level prediction being met. However, in the same field of endeavor, Joly teaches adjusting the route based on the likelihood of the service level prediction being met (p. 32, “component 122 predicts the computing resource requirement during the user's edge computing need. Based on the predicted computing resources during edge computing component 122 may predict resource requirements and resource output potential on different routes to identify if a route meets the required resource requirement and is a viable travel route.” And p. 33, “Component 122 may evaluate the SLA related to the latency for edge computing and accordingly the position of the vehicles, relative position will dynamically be changed based on the evaluation. In various embodiments, in any contextual situation, if the edge computing needs increase, then component 122 will dynamically route the vehicle, in real time, to an appropriate place so that edge computing can be done in an effective manner.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to incorporate adapting the route from Joly to improve effectiveness the motivation would have been to increase the resources available for providing the service while enabling a user to precede to their desired route.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zielinski and Baglin as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Pawar et al., US 11252214 B1 (hereafter referred to as Pawar).
L. Claim 19, Zielinski-Baglin teaches the method of Claim 18, further comprising:
transmitting a message to the network node requesting a likelihood of the service level prediction being met be increased. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pawar teaches transmitting a message to the network node requesting a likelihood of the service level prediction being met be increased (column 12, lines 19-25*; “Further, as the UE is served with EN-DC by the 4G eNB 16 and the 5G gNB 20, the act of determining that the UE is headed toward reduced-throughput coverage or otherwise predicting that the UE will experience a coverage-throughput reduction could be carried out by any entity or entities that could track the UE's location in correlation with likely levels of coverage throughput. “And column 13, lines 19-31; “Further, as the UE is served with EN-DC by the 4G eNB 16 and the 5G gNB 20, the act of determining that the UE is headed toward reduced-throughput coverage or otherwise predicting that the UE will experience a coverage-throughput reduction could be carried out by any entity or entities that could track the UE's location in correlation with likely levels of coverage throughput.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zielinski-Baglin to improve prediction likelihood from Pawar the motivation would have been to be proactive and increase user experience by providing service as expected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miklos et al., US 20160359750 A1 (hereafter referred to as Miklos) – p. 111, “the background traffic gets a lower share already at low congestion level, but it is completely stopped at medium congestion level to allow for more important traffic to pass through. OTT video is allowed a higher throughput at low and medium congestion levels, but at high congestion that is stopped in this example to allow more important traffic, such as the operator provided video application, to pass through. Premium subscribers get a higher throughput share in all congestion levels than normal subscribers.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 at (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 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights