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 .
Response to Arguments
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/06/2026.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s Arguments:
Applicant argues the amendment of claims 3 and 23 resolve the 112b issue.
Examiner’s Response:
Upon the amendment resolving the issue, the 112b rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the 101 rejections of claims 21-25, Applicant argues “processor” falls into the category of machine and cites ¶¶ [0035-0039] for support.
Regarding the 101 rejections of claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 18-19, and 21-23, Applicant argues the amendment overcomes the 101 rejections.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections of claims 21-25, the claimed “processor” in the preamble is only to define the scope of the claim, rather than setting forth the structure of the claimed device, similarly to “device”/“apparatus” in a typical machine claim preamble. In other words, “processor” only sets forth the statutory category, machine claim. The structure for the machine claim is recited after “comprising.”
To overcome the 101 rejection, Applicant is recommended to amend claim 21 to be an apparatus claim and recite “processor” after “comprising” in the body of the claim. In this way, “processor” would be a hardware structure of claim 21.
Regarding the 101 rejections of claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 18-19, and 21-23, the amendment recites “wherein the plurality of session requirements apply to a plurality of communication sessions, and the plurality of communication sessions include at least a first communication session between a first device in the virtual space and a second device in the physical space and a second communication session between a third device in the virtual space and a fourth device in the physical space.” However, these limitations are additional elements generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Because these additional elements does not change the nature of the mental processes of “decompose the application service requirement to a plurality of session requirements,” but instead apply the mental process to a field of use (communication sessions between devices in a virtual space and devices in a physical space).
To overcome the 101 rejections, Applicant is recommended to either incorporate claims 6/7 (non-rejected claims) into independent claims, or positively recite implementing/applying the set of joint quality of service parameters (after “send” limitation, if having support for such amendment) as meaningful limitations to integrate the mental processes/judicial exception into a practical application.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s Arguments:
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach the claim amendment, “decompose the application service requirement to a plurality of session requirements, wherein the plurality of session requirements apply to a plurality of communication sessions, and the plurality of communication sessions include at least a first communication session between a first device in the virtual space and a second device in the physical space and a second communication session between a third device in the virtual space and a fourth device in the physical space.”
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The prior art of record, Cui teaches “decompose the application service requirement to a plurality of session requirements, wherein the plurality of session requirements apply to a plurality of communication sessions, and the plurality of communication sessions include at least a first communication session between a first device in the virtual space and a second device in the physical space and a second communication session between a third device in the virtual space and a fourth device in the physical space; (¶ [0036-0039], a metaverse object may include a resource (e.g., a racecar, a weapon, etc.) that a user may control or manipulate in an immersive environment to achieve a goal. As yet another example, a metaverse object may include an icon or figure (e.g., an avatar) that represents a real user in a virtual world. In the metaverse, there may be numerous metaverse objects that are available for user engagement and/or control … the minimum and/or recommended connection bandwidth or speed for experiencing the metaverse object, the “best” frame rate for experiencing the metaverse object … configured to provide functions or capabilities relating to facilitating and managing immersive environments or experiences for users … metaverse services facilitated by the network system 200 can be purely virtual and/or can involve interactions between the virtual and physical worlds … ¶ [0048], policies and control functions for core network optimization and efficiency/flexibility and for managing quality of experience (QoE); ¶ [0079], when a user behaves in a predefined manner or an event is predicted to occur (e.g., within a threshold time, within a threshold distance from the user, and/or the like), the action(s) may be performed to facilitate improved user experience; ¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may (e.g., based on metaverse-to-physical world mappings provided by the mapping and abstraction layer 248 and/or based on other data) identify metaverse object attributes, quality-of-service (QoS) and/or SLA requirements (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, quality of service class identifier (QCI), and/or the like)).
In summary, Cui teaches policies/requirements (e.g., bandwidth, speed, etc.) for communication sessions/interactions between user devices in a physical space and metaverse objects in a virtual space. Such session requirements (e.g., QoS, SLA, etc.) are used to manage users’ quality of experience (QoE) in users interacting with metaverse objects, namely communication sessions between physical devices and virtual devices/objects.
DETAILED ACTION
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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 21-25 are directed to software per se.
Specifically, claim 21 recites “An processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the process to: …” The claimed processor in the preamble is only to define the scope of the claim, rather than setting forth the structure of the claimed device, similarly to “device”/“apparatus” in a typical machine claim preamble. In other words, “processor” only sets forth the statutory category, machine claim. The structure for the machine claim is recited after “comprising” (See MPEP 2111.03: “The transitional phrases "comprising", "consisting essentially of" and "consisting of" define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.”). Moreover, claim 21 recites only a controller as a structure/component. Although claim 21 recites “at least controller coupled with at least one memory,” but however “at least one memory” is not part of the machine claim and is used describe a coupling/connection of “at least one controller.” Further, the specification does not provide definition for "controller." Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, controller could be software controller. Therefore, claim 21 is directed to software per se. Claims 17-23 fail to recite any hardware/structure to the claimed processor/machine and thus are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
For exemplary claim 1:
Step 1: a machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “decompose the application service requirement to a plurality of session requirements … derive a set of joint quality of service parameters for the plurality of sessions based at least in part on the plurality of session requirements,” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “An apparatus 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 apparatus to,” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements, “receive an application service requirement corresponding to a plurality of devices” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). The additional elements, “send the set of joint quality of service parameters to one or more network entities in a wireless communication network,” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity). (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “send an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both,” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “the plurality of devices operating in physical space, or in a virtual space of a virtual experience service, or both … wherein the plurality of session requirements apply to a plurality of communication sessions, and t the plurality of communication sessions include at least a first communication session between a first device in the virtual space and a second device in the physical space and a second communication session between a third device in the virtual space and a fourth device in the physical space,” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (communication sessions between devices in a virtual space and devices in a physical space; in other words, virtual/augmented/extended reality or metaverse) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine joint quality of service parameters using a generic computer as a tool.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the additional elements, “receive an application service requirement corresponding to a plurality of devices,” and “send the set of joint quality of service parameters to one or more network entities in a wireless communication network,” are just receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 11 and 21 recite similar claim limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as those of claim 1.
Moreover, additional elements recited in dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 14-15, 18-19, and 22-23 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more as well.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 22, and 23 recite additional elements directed to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05 (h))
Claims 9 and 19 recite additional mental process, “adapt the set of joint quality of service parameters for the plurality of sessions based on the event.” Claims 9 and 19 recite insignificant extra-solution activities, “receive an event related to a quality of service change for one or more sessions of the plurality of sessions” (pre-solution activity, data gathering), and “send the adapted set of joint quality of service parameters for the plurality of sessions to one or more network entities or application entities” (post-solution activity, outputting data). (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). These insignificant extra-solution activities are merely receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 6-7 and 24-25 recite additional elements directed to simulation using digital twins in a virtual space, which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-15, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cui (US 2023/0421646 A1).
Per claims 1, 11, and 21, Cui teaches “An apparatus 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 apparatus to: (¶ [0014], a processing system including a processor, and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations) receive an application service requirement corresponding to a plurality of devices,(¶ [0053], a metaverse object may be mapped with real world, service level agreement (SLA) requirement(s) or the like. For instance, a metaverse object's mobility state may be mapped with network bandwidth requirements—e.g., graphics resolution requirements may be higher for metaverse objects that are “moving” at high speeds in the metaverse, and thus network bandwidth may need to be higher to properly accommodate graphics content delivery relating to such fast movements. As another example, a metaverse object may be mapped to a particular minimum network latency, where a 5G RAN and core as well as a 5G slice may be needed to facilitate a metaverse service request associated with that metaverse object; ¶ [0070], an external immersion engine or server may, based upon detecting a user's desire to engage in an immersive environment using a UE 255, submit a corresponding metaverse service (or provisioning) request 252 to the H-SDO system 244. Continuing the example, the request 252 may include a token containing information regarding the UE 255 (e.g., a unique identifier or the like), a desired metaverse service, a customer account associated with the user or the UE 255, metaverse service requirements and/or an SLA associated with the user) the plurality of devices operating in physical space, (¶ [0032], The network system 200 can provide metaverse services to various types of user equipment (UEs), such as UEs 255) or in a virtual space of a virtual experience service, (¶ [0039], a virtual racing game or party hosted in the metaverse 250 may include metaverse objects (e.g., racecars or avatars) that are associated with users in different countries and that are respectively hosted in or run on one or more edge systems/devices near the corresponding users) or both (¶ [0037], metaverse object (e.g., as a representation of a user (such as an avatar); ¶ [0051-0052], a golfer avatar in the metaverse may be mapped to a golfing community … mappings between metaverse objects and the physical world may be dynamic and/or service dependent); decompose the application service requirement to a plurality of session requirements, wherein the plurality of session requirements apply to a plurality of communication sessions, and the plurality of communication sessions include at least a first communication session between a first device in the virtual space and a second device in the physical space and a second communication session between a third device in the virtual space and a fourth device in the physical space; (¶ [0036-0039], a metaverse object may include a resource (e.g., a racecar, a weapon, etc.) that a user may control or manipulate in an immersive environment to achieve a goal. As yet another example, a metaverse object may include an icon or figure (e.g., an avatar) that represents a real user in a virtual world. In the metaverse, there may be numerous metaverse objects that are available for user engagement and/or control … the minimum and/or recommended connection bandwidth or speed for experiencing the metaverse object, the “best” frame rate for experiencing the metaverse object … configured to provide functions or capabilities relating to facilitating and managing immersive environments or experiences for users … metaverse services facilitated by the network system 200 can be purely virtual and/or can involve interactions between the virtual and physical worlds … ¶ [0048], policies and control functions for core network optimization and efficiency/flexibility and for managing quality of experience (QoE); ¶ [0079], when a user behaves in a predefined manner or an event is predicted to occur (e.g., within a threshold time, within a threshold distance from the user, and/or the like), the action(s) may be performed to facilitate improved user experience; ¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may (e.g., based on metaverse-to-physical world mappings provided by the mapping and abstraction layer 248 and/or based on other data) identify metaverse object attributes, quality-of-service (QoS) and/or SLA requirements (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, quality of service class identifier (QCI), and/or the like)) derive a set of joint quality of service parameters for the plurality of communication sessions based at least in part on the plurality of session requirements; and send the set of joint quality of service parameters to one or more network entities in a wireless communication network” (¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may receive and analyze the metaverse service request 252, and based on result(s) of the analysis (e.g., the determined type of metaverse service needed, requirement(s) of the metaverse service, and/or the like) … the H-SDO system 244 may (e.g., based on metaverse-to-physical world mappings provided by the mapping and abstraction layer 248 and/or based on other data) identify metaverse object attributes, quality-of-service (QoS) and/or SLA requirements (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, quality of service class identifier (QCI), and/or the like), a location of the UE 255 … select universal resources from one or more of the access network(s) 210, the transport network(s) 215, the core network(s) 220, and/or the metaverse 250 to be chained or stitched to ultimately deliver the metaverse service. For instance, the H-SDO system 244 may determine that a particular MEC device located within a threshold distance from the UE 255 to be the appropriate resource to store software components of the immersive environment associated with the metaverse service, that a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements (which a 4G RAN is unable to satisfy), that a certain minimum transport network speed is required for proper metaverse object graphics data delivery (e.g., and thus a microwave wireless-based transport network is preferred over a fiber-based one), that a core should be instantiated, that a network slice should be instantiated (across the access network, transport network, and core network), and/or the like. Further continuing the example, a corresponding app service may be created using the selected universal resources and connected to a data plane (e.g., a UPF or the like) to provision the UE 255, such that, when the UE 255 begins facilitating the immersive environment, the metaverse service is provided to the UE 255 (e.g., as a metaverse service endpoint) via the selected universal resources and the data plane. In this way, the H-SDO system 244 may provide an E2E network path in the physical world that connects the UE 255 to the metaverse 250 in an application layer facilitated over the path. ¶ [0074-0075], the DSH element may monitor the network resources (e.g., for performance, for faults, for QoS purposes (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, QCI, etc.) … the H-SDO system 244 may recalculate, or redetermine, a metaverse service composition that excludes the non-performant network resource, and cause an adjusted service path to be instantiated … the H-SDO system 244 identifies an available Wi-Fi access point that a UE (e.g., a UE 255) associated with the metaverse service is within communicable range of, the H-SDO system 244 may reinstantiate the service path … exclude or replace other network resource(s) in a re-determined metaverse service composition … determines that not doing so might result in system latencies, breaches of rules between the some or all of the network resources in the current metaverse service composition; also see teachings in ¶ [0053]).
Per claims 2 and 22, Cui further teaches “wherein the plurality of devices operating in the physical space or the virtual space, or both, comprise: physical devices, (¶ [0039], the immersion or immersive environment … may be hosted or stored in servers or computing devices that are generally local or regional to those users … the network system 200 may include any number of edge systems/devices … UEs 255) digital devices, (¶ [0052], the mapping and abstraction layer/system 248 may define or identify metaverse object attributes and derive mapping(s) thereof with the physical world based on predefined and/or learned rules … mappings between metaverse objects and the physical world may be dynamic and/or service dependent) network entities, (¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may … select universal resources from one or more of the access network(s) 210, the transport network(s) 215, the core network(s) 220, and/or the metaverse 250 to be chained or stitched to ultimately deliver the metaverse service. For instance, the H-SDO system 244 may determine that a particular MEC device located within a threshold distance from the UE 255 to be the appropriate resource to store software components of the immersive environment associated with the metaverse service, that a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements (which a 4G RAN is unable to satisfy), that a certain minimum transport network speed is required for proper metaverse object graphics data delivery (e.g., and thus a microwave wireless-based transport network is preferred over a fiber-based one), that a core should be instantiated, that a network slice should be instantiated (across the access network, transport network, and core network)) application entities (¶ [0070], the metaverse 250 in an application layer; ¶ [0073], H-SDNc 242 may additionally coordinate networking and provisioning of applications and/or services) or a combination thereof (Fig. 2A)”
Per claims 3 and 23, Cui further teaches “wherein the received application service requirement comprises: a set of performance requirements for the virtual experience service; (¶ [0053], a metaverse object may be mapped with real world, service level agreement (SLA) requirement(s) or the like. For instance, a metaverse object's mobility state may be mapped with network bandwidth requirements—e.g., graphics resolution requirements may be higher for metaverse objects that are “moving” at high speeds in the metaverse, and thus network bandwidth may need to be higher to properly accommodate graphics content delivery relating to such fast movements. As another example, a metaverse object may be mapped to a particular minimum network latency, where a 5G RAN and core as well as a 5G slice may be needed to facilitate a metaverse service request associated with that metaverse object) subscriptions associated with the plurality of devices; identities and addresses of the plurality of devices; (¶ [0051], metaverse object attributes may identify properties of a metaverse object (e.g., that it is a resource, that it is an avatar, that it belongs to a “geo area”; … a metaverse object's attributes may include data regarding an identifier or ID of the metaverse object … location(s) of the metaverse object within the immersive environment; ¶ [0042], data relating to UEs 255 (such as information regarding an identity of the UE, a current location of the UE …; ¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may … identify metaverse object attributes, quality-of-service (QoS) and/or SLA requirements … a location of the UE 255 … the H-SDO system 244 may determine that a particular MEC device located within a threshold distance from the UE 255 to be the appropriate resource to store software components of the immersive environment associated with the metaverse service, that a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements) a request for coordinating quality of service for the virtual experience service; (¶ [0070], submit a corresponding metaverse service (or provisioning) request 252 to the H-SDO system 244 … identify … quality-of-service (QoS) … a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements) a virtual experience application service profile; (¶ [0070], submit a corresponding metaverse service (or provisioning) request 252 to the H-SDO system 244…. a customer account associated with the user or the UE 255) a service area for which the application service requirement applies; or a combination thereof” (¶ [0054-0055], a metaverse object (and/or its associated centralized or distributed software components) may be mapped to real world geographic locations, such as locations of MEC device(s) … An immersive environment (e.g., game) and/or its corresponding metaverse objects (e.g., game objects, such as racecars, etc.) may thus be mappable to real world locations that provide users with coverage for the immersive environment so long as their respective UEs 255 are located in or near (e.g., within threshold distance(s) from) the coverage area(s) … identify or define a geo area (or community) that includes or encompasses some or all of the coverage areas provided by the various MEC device(s) that are hosting a given immersive environment and/or its corresponding metaverse objects …; ¶ [0051], metaverse object attributes may identify properties of a metaverse object (e.g., that it is a resource, that it is an avatar, that it belongs to a “geo area”; … a metaverse object's attributes may include … location(s) of the metaverse object within the immersive environment; ¶ [0067], the H-SDNc 242 may interact with the H-SDO system 244 to dynamically alter chains based on detected changes (or trigger conditions), such as a change in a virtual community, a change in a physical location of a UE 255, a change to interface equipment; ¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may … identify … a location of the UE 255 … the H-SDO system 244 may determine that a particular MEC device located within a threshold distance from the UE 255 to be the appropriate resource to store software components of the immersive environment associated with the metaverse service, that a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements).
Per claims 4 and 14, Cui further teaches “wherein the application service requirement is received from a virtual experience service provider or a network management system” (¶ [0070], an external immersion engine or server may, based upon detecting a user's desire to engage in an immersive environment using a UE 255, submit a corresponding metaverse service (or provisioning) request 252 to the H-SDO system 244. Continuing the example, the request 252 may include a token containing information regarding the UE 255 (e.g., a unique identifier or the like), a desired metaverse service, a customer account associated with the user or the UE 255, metaverse service requirements and/or an SLA associated with the user).
Per claims 5 and 15, Cui further teaches “wherein the plurality of session requirements are network session requirements or application session requirements and comprise quality of service or quality of experience targets” (¶ [0070], the H-SDO system 244 may receive and analyze the metaverse service request 252, and based on result(s) of the analysis (e.g., the determined type of metaverse service needed, requirement(s) of the metaverse service, and/or the like) … the H-SDO system 244 may (e.g., based on metaverse-to-physical world mappings provided by the mapping and abstraction layer 248 and/or based on other data) identify metaverse object attributes, quality-of-service (QoS) and/or SLA requirements (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, quality of service class identifier (QCI), and/or the like), … the H-SDO system 244 may determine … that a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements (which a 4G RAN is unable to satisfy), that a certain minimum transport network speed is required for proper metaverse object graphics data delivery (e.g., and thus a microwave wireless-based transport network is preferred over a fiber-based one); ¶ [0074-0075], the DSH element may monitor the network resources (e.g., for performance, for faults, for QoS purposes (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, QCI, etc.) … the H-SDO system 244 may recalculate, or redetermine, a metaverse service composition that excludes the non-performant network resource, and cause an adjusted service path to be instantiated … a re-determined metaverse service composition … determines that not doing so might result in system latencies, breaches of rules between the some or all of the network resources in the current metaverse service composition; ¶ [0053], a metaverse object may be mapped with real world, service level agreement (SLA) requirement(s) or the like. For instance, a metaverse object's mobility state may be mapped with network bandwidth requirements—e.g., graphics resolution requirements may be higher for metaverse objects that are “moving” at high speeds in the metaverse, and thus network bandwidth may need to be higher to properly accommodate graphics content delivery relating to such fast movements. As another example, a metaverse object may be mapped to a particular minimum network latency, where a 5G RAN and core as well as a 5G slice may be needed to facilitate a metaverse service request associated with that metaverse object).
Per claims 8 and 18, Cui further teaches “wherein the joint quality of service parameters determine service provisioning policies for the virtual space to be applied by at least one respective network function” (¶ [0070], an external immersion engine or server may, based upon detecting a user's desire to engage in an immersive environment using a UE 255, submit a corresponding metaverse service (or provisioning) request 252 to the H-SDO system 244 … the H-SDO system 244 may receive and analyze the metaverse service request 252, and based on result(s) of the analysis (e.g., the determined type of metaverse service needed, requirement(s) of the metaverse service, and/or the like) … the H-SDO system 244 may (e.g., based on metaverse-to-physical world mappings provided by the mapping and abstraction layer 248 and/or based on other data) identify metaverse object attributes, quality-of-service (QoS) and/or SLA requirements (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, quality of service class identifier (QCI), and/or the like), … the H-SDO system 244 may determine that a particular MEC device located within a threshold distance from the UE 255 to be the appropriate resource to store software components of the immersive environment associated with the metaverse service, that a 5G RAN is needed to satisfy QoS requirements (which a 4G RAN is unable to satisfy), that a certain minimum transport network speed is required for proper metaverse object graphics data delivery (e.g., and thus a microwave wireless-based transport network is preferred over a fiber-based one), that a core should be instantiated, that a network slice should be instantiated (across the access network, transport network, and core network; also see teachings in ¶¶ [0074-0075], [0053]).
Per claims 9 and 19, Cui further teaches “receive an event related to a quality of service change for one or more communication sessions of the plurality of communication sessions; (¶ [0074-0075], the DSH element may monitor the network resources (e.g., for performance, for faults, for QoS purposes (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, QCI, etc.), and/or the like) and provide reports on the network resources (e.g., operational status/health reports or the like) to the H-SDO system 244 to facilitate metaverse service design, composition, and orchestration … the DSH element may obtain fault definitions provided by the H-SDO system 244, which may identify threshold(s) associated with certain data regarding the network resource(s) that the DSH element is to monitor and report on … the DSH element may provide a corresponding report to the H-SDO system 244, the H-SDO system 244 may utilize to determine whether the particular network resource should be included in a set of network resources for supporting a requested metaverse service; ¶ [0067], the H-SDNc 242 may interact with the H-SDO system 244 to dynamically alter chains based on detected changes (or trigger conditions), such as a change in a virtual community, a change in a physical location of a UE 255, a change to interface equipment, and so on) adapt the set of joint quality of service parameters for the plurality of communication sessions based on the event; and send the adapted set of joint quality of service parameters for the plurality of communication sessions to the one or more network entities or application entities” (¶ [0074-0076], for QoS purposes (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, QCI, etc.) … the H-SDO system 244 may recalculate, or redetermine, a metaverse service composition that excludes the non-performant network resource, and cause an adjusted service path to be instantiated. For example, in a case where the H-SDO system 244 determines, based on a report provided by the DSH element that a base station (e.g., in the access network(s) 210) has failed, is overloaded, or is underperforming, and where the H-SDO system 244 identifies an available Wi-Fi access point that a UE (e.g., a UE 255) associated with the metaverse service is within communicable range of, the H-SDO system 244 may reinstantiate the service path to exclude the base station and include the Wi-Fi access point. In various embodiments, the H-SDO system 244 may exclude or replace other network resource(s) in a re-determined metaverse service composition (e.g., even those network resources that might not be underperforming) if the H-SDO system 244 determines that not doing so might result in system latencies, breaches of rules between the some or all of the network resources in the current metaverse service composition … the DSH element enables the H-SDO system 244 to dynamically adjust service paths, and thereby facilitates ongoing, proactive self-management of a metaverse service, which improves overall end user experience. Performing load balancing and maximizing use of an entirety of the access network(s) 210, the transport network(s) 215, and the core network(s) 220 as part of such self-management can also improve overall network performance. Furthermore, resource abstraction into individual universal resources that are accessible, connectable, and/or stitchable (e.g., based on requested metaverse service needs) enables facilitation of metaverse services for users; ¶ [0067], The H-SDNc 242 may be configured to leverage its “global view” of these various resources to instantiate selected resources (e.g., not only physical network resources, but also resources in the metaverse) and to “chain” the virtual communities and relevant resources together (with the proper distribution and interconnections) to facilitate a requested metaverse service … the H-SDNc 242 may interact with the H-SDO system 244 to dynamically alter chains based on detected changes (or trigger conditions), such as a change in a virtual community, a change in a physical location of a UE 255, a change to interface equipment, and so on.)
Per claim 10, Cui further teaches “wherein the event related to a quality of service change is received from one of the plurality of devices operating in the physical or the virtual space, or from a network element in the wireless communication network” (¶ [0067], the H-SDNc 242 may interact with the H-SDO system 244 to dynamically alter chains based on detected changes (or trigger conditions), such as a change in a virtual community, a change in a physical location of a UE 255, a change to interface equipment, and so on. Some or all of these changes may be detected by the AIC 210 i, the TIC 215 i, the CIC 220 i, and/or the MIC 250 m and reported to the H-SDNc 242 for any necessary responsive actions (e.g., shown as “network control” in FIG. 2A); ¶ [0074-0075], the DSH element may monitor the network resources (e.g., for performance, for faults, for QoS purposes (e.g., relating to latency, transmission speed, transmission frequency, routing, the uplink/downlink, QCI, etc.), and/or the like) and provide reports on the network resources (e.g., operational status/health reports or the like) to the H-SDO system 244 to facilitate metaverse service design, composition, and orchestration … the DSH element may, based on monitoring data regarding a particular network resource, determine whether a parameter of the particular network resource satisfies a threshold (e.g., exceeds the threshold). In a case where the DSH element determines that the parameter satisfies the threshold, the DSH element may provide a corresponding report to the H-SDO system 244).
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 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.
Claims 6-7 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US 2023/0421646 A1) in view of Ghosh (US 2023/0077451 A1).
Per claims 6 and 24, Cui teaches “derive the set of joint quality of service parameters” (see rejections for independent claims.” Cui further teaches digital twins (¶ [0036], an avatar) that represents a real user in a virtual world … the metaverse object (e.g., as a representation of a user (such as an avatar); ¶ [0038], facilitating and managing immersive environments or experiences for users).
However, Cui does not teach deriving the set of joint quality of service parameters “based on running at least one simulation at the virtual space using digital twins of the plurality of devices.”
Ghosh teaches determining/deriving QoS based on running a simulation at a digital/virtual space using digital twins of devices (¶ [0060], the network manager can generate a digital twin of the network to perform simulations of recommended systems. The digital twins can be used to run one or more simulations. In some embodiments, the simulation data can be added to the training data. In some embodiments, the simulation data can be used to identify QoS, Level of Service (LoS), gaps in efficiency, and/or other factors that can affect the overall efficiency of an edge network. The results of the simulation data can be used as a factor in various recommendations; ¶ [0066-0067], the recommendations are based on a simulation run with digital twins of the connected devices … the input is based on NLP of the product information. The specification can include bandwidths, processing speed, storage space, speed data, and other similar technical data … the predictions can be based on predicted future uses and/or predicted future required capacity. In some embodiments, usage predictor 414 can analyze QoS. Usage predictor 414 can output a QoS score. The QoS score can represent the effectiveness/quality of the network, or a component/task within the network).
Thus, given the teaching of Ghosh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of deriving QoS based on running a simulation using digital twins of Ghosh into determining session joint QoS of Cui, such that session joint QoS would be derived based on running a simulation at a virtual space using digital twins of devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ghosh recognizes that it would have been advantageous to use digital twins for a simulation for various recommendations (¶ [0060], The digital twins can be used to run one or more simulations … the simulation data can be used to identify QoS, Level of Service (LoS), gaps in efficiency, and/or other factors that can affect the overall efficiency of an edge network. The results of the simulation data can be used as a factor in various recommendations). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is applying a known technique of deriving QoS (based on simulation using digital twins as taught by Ghosh) to a known method of deriving joint QoS ready for improvement (as taught by Cui) to yield predictable results (KSR MPEP 2143).
Per claims 7 and 25, Ghosh further teaches “request simulations from a simulation engine based on digital twins for a set of hypothetical parameters; receive simulation outputs based on the requested simulations; and process the simulation outputs to determine quality of service parameters per session” (¶ [0060], the network manager can generate a digital twin of the network to perform simulations of recommended systems. The digital twins can be used to run one or more simulations. In some embodiments, the simulation data can be added to the training data. In some embodiments, the simulation data can be used to identify QoS, Level of Service (LoS), gaps in efficiency, and/or other factors that can affect the overall efficiency of an edge network. The results of the simulation data can be used as a factor in various recommendations; ¶ [0066-0067], the recommendations are based on a simulation run with digital twins of the connected devices … the input is based on NLP of the product information. The specification can include bandwidths, processing speed, storage space, speed data, and other similar technical data … the predictions can be based on predicted future uses and/or predicted future required capacity. In some embodiments, usage predictor 414 can analyze QoS. Usage predictor 414 can output a QoS score. The QoS score can represent the effectiveness/quality of the network, or a component/task within the network). [Comment: simulation data and specification data in Ghosh is the hypothetical parameters. In addition, a simulation necessarily has hypothetical parameters. The combination and motivation is the same as that of claim 6/24.]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH S WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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.
/HANNAH S WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights