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 .
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
Drawings
3. The applicant’s submitted drawings are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 and 10/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 16 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0155435 to Karapantelakis et al. (hereinafter Karapantelakis).
Regarding Claim 1, Karapantelakis discloses (¶1) a method for managing Quality of Service (QoS) of wireless devices in a communication network, which further includes:
an intent management method (Karapantelakis discloses (¶7) managing Quality of Service (QoS) of wireless devices in a communication network), comprising:
receiving, by a first apparatus (i.e., QoS management node), intent management capability information (i.e., QoS intent) from a second apparatus (i.e., first node) (Karapantelakis discloses (¶33-34 and Fig. 8) the QoS management node (first apparatus) receiving a QoS intent from a first node (second apparatus), the QoS intent comprising an identification of wireless device to which the QoS intent applies and a specification of QoS requirement for the identified wireless device)
wherein the intent management capability information indicates intent management capability information supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction, with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled)
generating, by the first apparatus based on the intent management capability information and a management requirement, target intent information that meets a constraint of the intent management capability information and meets the management requirement (Karapantelakis discloses (¶37, ¶47, and Fig. 4d) the QoS management node generates a network QoS vector, a policy requirements vector, and uses an ML model (¶51) to determine the policy that enables fulfillment of the QoS requirements (¶59) and then it performs at least one of an intent adaptation process or a configuration recommendation process (¶60, ¶62) and may determine which process to perform according to operator preference, SLAs and based on the identity of the first node from which the QoS intent was received)
and sending, by the first apparatus, the target intent information to the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process, or the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process, to the first node.)
Claim 2, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information comprises one or both of the following:
the intent management capability information comprises information about an intent object supported by the second apparatus, or
the intent management capability information comprises information about an intent target supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent comprises an identification of at least one wireless device to which the QoS intent applies and a specification of at least one QoS requirement for the identified wireless device. The QoS intent defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction, with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled. The QoS intent may further comprise a required or limit value of a QoS parameter in the communication network. The QoS intent may further comprise at least one of a time window during which the QoS intent is valid, and/or a set of energy requirements for the identified wireless devices. The QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies.)
Claim 3, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the information about the intent object comprises one or more of the following: type information of the intent object, granularity information of the intent object (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the intent comprises one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled), network standard information of the intent object or frequency domain information of the intent object (Karapantelakis discloses (¶46, ¶78) 3GPP network standards: the policy control node may be a PCRF in 4G or a PCF in 5G)
and the information about the intent target comprises one or more of the following: type information of the intent target, name information of the intent target, or a value range of the intent target (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the intent target information comprises identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies.)
Claim 4, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information further comprises: whether the intent object supports a plurality of frequency domains, or whether the intent object supports a plurality of network standards (Karapantelakis discloses (¶35) the specification of available QoS may include values that are measured, observed or estimated end-to-end, via consideration of the contribution to each parameter of a Radio Access Network, Backhaul Network, and Core Network of the communication network)
and whether the second apparatus supports a plurality of intent targets or a constraint relationship between a plurality of intent targets supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶59-¶60) the QoS management node identifies the earliest time at which any policy in the candidate set is able to fulfil the at least one QoS requirement of the QoS intent. However, if the QoS management node finds that the candidate set does not contain any policies, then it performs at least one of an intent adaptation process or a configuration recommendation process, and may determine which process to perform. This determination may be programmed according to operator preference, or according to SLAs with specific third parties, and may consequently be based on the identity of the first node from which the QoS intent was received, etc.)
Claim 7, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information further comprises a first identifier and a second identifier, wherein the first identifier is an identifier of the intent management capability information (Karapantelakis (¶34) discloses the QoS intent comprise of QoS parameter. Example QoS parameters may include first identifier i.e. QoS Class Identifier (QCI) and/or QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) parameters such as priority level, packet delay budget, packet error rate, packet jitter, resource type, etc.), and the second identifier is an identifier of an intent management function object to which the intent management capability information belongs (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34), the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of a time window (i.e. second identifier) and/or a set of energy requirements for the identified wireless devices, characterized by a time duration or an expiration time or date.)
Claim 8, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 7. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the sending, by the first apparatus, the target intent information to the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process, or the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process, to the first node) comprises: sending, by the first apparatus, the target intent information and the second identifier to the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from QoS management node (first apparatus) to a first node (second apparatus), informing the first node of at least one of from when or until when (i.e. the second identifier) the QoS requirement of the QoS intent can be fulfilled.)
Claim 9, Karapantelakis discloses (¶1) a method for managing Quality of Service (QoS) of wireless devices in a communication network, which further includes:
an intent management method (Karapantelakis discloses (¶7) managing Quality of Service (QoS) of wireless devices in a communication network), comprising:
sending, by a second apparatus, intent management capability information to a first apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶33 and Fig. 8) the QoS management node (first apparatus) receiving a QoS intent from a first node (second apparatus), the QoS intent comprising an identification of wireless device to which the QoS intent applies and a specification of QoS requirement for the identified wireless device),
wherein the intent management capability information indicates intent management capability information supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction, with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled),
receiving, by the second apparatus, target intent information from the first apparatus, wherein the target intent information meets a constraint of the intent management capability information, and the target intent information meets a management requirement (Karapantelakis discloses (¶37, ¶47, and Fig. 4d) the QoS management node generates a network QoS vector, a policy requirements vector, and uses an ML model (¶51) to determine the policy that enables fulfillment of the QoS requirements (¶59) and then it performs at least one of an intent adaptation process or a configuration recommendation process (¶60, ¶62) and may determine which process to perform according to operator preference, SLAs and based on the identity of the first node from which the QoS intent was received) and
processing, by the second apparatus, the target intent information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process, or the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process, to the first node.)
Claim 10, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 9. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information comprises one or both of the following:
the intent management capability information comprises information about an intent object supported by the second apparatus, or
the intent management capability information comprises information about an intent target supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent comprises an identification of at least one wireless device to which the QoS intent applies and a specification of at least one QoS requirement for the identified wireless device. The QoS intent defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction, with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled. The QoS intent may further comprise a required or limit value of a QoS parameter in the communication network. The QoS intent may further comprise at least one of a time window during which the QoS intent is valid, and/or a set of energy requirements for the identified wireless devices. The QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies.)
Claim 11, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 9. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information further comprises a first identifier and a second identifier, wherein the first identifier is an identifier of the intent management capability information (Karapantelakis (¶34) discloses the QoS intent comprises of QoS parameter. Example QoS parameters may include first identifier i.e. QoS Class Identifier (QCI) and/or QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) parameters such as priority level, packet delay budget, packet error rate, packet jitter, resource type, etc.), and the second identifier is an identifier of an intent management function object to which the intent management capability information belongs (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34), the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of a time window (i.e. second identifier) and/or a set of energy requirements for the identified wireless devices, characterized by a time duration or an expiration time or date), and the second apparatus manages one or more intent management function objects, and each intent management function object comprises one or more pieces of intent management capability information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent from the first node (i.e. second apparatus) defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction (i.e. intent management function objects), with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS (i.e. intent management capability) that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled.)
Claim 12, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 11. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
receiving, by the second apparatus, the target intent information and the second identifier from the first apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process, or the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process, to the first node) and the processing, by the second apparatus, the target intent information comprises: determining, by the second apparatus based on the second identifier from the one or more intent management function objects, an intent management function object that executes the target intent information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from QoS management node (first apparatus) to a first node (second apparatus), informing the first node of at least one of from when or until when (i.e. the second identifier) the QoS requirement of the QoS intent can be fulfilled) and creating, by the second apparatus based on the target intent information, an intent in the determined intent management function object that executes the target intent information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) the first node receives the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process and/or adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process at the QoS management node, and in response, the first node may fulfill and execute the QoS immediately (¶65) and indicate acceptance. The QoS management node and first node may consequently enter a period of negotiation to identify an acceptable solution.)
Claim 13, Karapantelakis discloses (¶1) a method for managing Quality of Service (QoS) of wireless devices in a communication network, which further includes:
a first apparatus and a second apparatus, wherein the second apparatus comprises a second processor and is configured to send intent management capability information to the first apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶7) managing Quality of Service (QoS) of wireless devices in a communication network. Karapantelakis discloses (¶33 and Fig. 8) the QoS management node (first apparatus) receiving a QoS intent from a first node (second apparatus), the QoS intent comprising an identification of wireless device to which the QoS intent applies and a specification of QoS requirement for the identified wireless device)
wherein the intent management capability information indicates intent management capability information supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction, with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled)
the first apparatus comprises a first processor and is configured to generate target intent information based on the intent management capability information and a management requirement, wherein the target intent information meets a constraint of the intent management capability information, and the target intent information meets the management requirement (Karapantelakis discloses (¶37, ¶47, and Fig. 4d) the QoS management node generates a network QoS vector, a policy requirements vector, and uses an ML model (¶51) to determine the policy that enables fulfillment of the QoS requirements (¶59) and then it performs at least one of an intent adaptation process or a configuration recommendation process (¶60, ¶62) and may determine which process to perform according to operator preference, SLAs and based on the identity of the first node from which the QoS intent was received)
and send the target intent information to the second apparatus and the second apparatus is further configured to process the target intent information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) the first node receives the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process and/or adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process at the QoS management node, and in response, the first node may fulfill and execute the QoS immediately (¶65) and indicate acceptance. The QoS management node and first node may consequently enter into a period of negotiation to identify an acceptable solution.)
Claim 14, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 13. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information comprises one or both of the following: the intent management capability information comprises information about an intent object supported by the second apparatus, or the intent management capability information comprises information about an intent target supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent comprises an identification of at least one wireless device to which the QoS intent applies and a specification of at least one QoS requirement for the identified wireless device. The QoS intent defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction, with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled. The QoS intent may further comprise a required or limit value of a QoS parameter in the communication network. The QoS intent may further comprise at least one of a time window during which the QoS intent is valid, and/or a set of energy requirements for the identified wireless devices. The QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies.)
Claim 15, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 14. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the information about the intent object comprises one or more of the following: type information of the intent object, granularity information of the intent object (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the intent comprises one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled), network standard information of the intent object, or frequency domain information of the intent object (Karapantelakis discloses (¶46, ¶78) 3GPP network standards: the policy control node may be a PCRF in 4G or a PCF in 5G) and the information about the intent target comprises one or more of the following: type information of the intent target, name information of the intent target, or a value range of the intent target (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the intent target information comprises identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies.)
Claim 16, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 14. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information further comprises: whether the intent object supports a plurality of frequency domains, or whether the intent object supports a plurality of network standards (Karapantelakis discloses (¶35) the specification of available QoS may include values that are measured, observed or estimated end-to-end, via consideration of the contribution to each parameter of a Radio Access Network, Backhaul Network, and Core Network of the communication network) and whether the second apparatus supports a plurality of intent targets or a constraint relationship between a plurality of intent targets supported by the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶59-¶60) the QoS management node identifies the earliest time at which any policy in the candidate set is able to fulfil the at least one QoS requirement of the QoS intent. However, if the QoS management node finds that the candidate set does not contain any policies, then it performs at least one of an intent adaptation process or a configuration recommendation process, and may determine which process to perform. This determination may be programmed according to operator preference, or according to SLAs with specific third parties, and may consequently be based on the identity of the first node from which the QoS intent was received, etc.)
Claim 19, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 13. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the intent management capability information further comprises a first identifier and a second identifier, wherein the first identifier is an identifier of the intent management capability information (Karapantelakis (¶34) discloses the QoS intent comprises of QoS parameter. Example QoS parameters may include first identifier i.e. QoS Class Identifier (QCI) and/or QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) parameters such as priority level, packet delay budget, packet error rate, packet jitter, resource type, etc.), and the second identifier is an identifier of an intent management function object to which the intent management capability information belongs (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34), the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of a time window (i.e. second identifier) and/or a set of energy requirements for the identified wireless devices, characterized by a time duration or an expiration time or date), and the second apparatus manages one or more intent management function objects, and each intent management function object comprises one or more pieces of intent management capability information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent from the first node (i.e. second apparatus) defines a level of QoS for the identified wireless device or devices at a higher level of abstraction (i.e. intent management function objects), with the one or more QoS requirements setting out at a lower level of abstraction specific expectations for QoS (i.e. intent management capability) that must be satisfied for the QoS intent to be fulfilled.)
Claim 20, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 19. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the first apparatus is further configured to send the target intent information and the second identifier to the second apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process, or the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process, to the first node) and the second apparatus is further configured to determining, based on the second identifier from the one or more intent management function objects, an intent management function object that executes the target intent information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from QoS management node (first apparatus) to a first node (second apparatus), informing the first node of at least one of from when or until when (i.e. the second identifier) the QoS requirement of the QoS intent can be fulfilled) and create, based on the target intent information, an intent in the determined intent management function object that executes the target intent information (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) the first node receives the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process and/or adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process at the QoS management node, and in response, the first node may fulfill and execute the QoS immediately (¶65) and indicate acceptance. The QoS management node and first node may consequently enter a period of negotiation to identify an acceptable solution) receiving, by the second apparatus, the target intent information and the second identifier from the first apparatus (Karapantelakis discloses (¶64) sending the selected adapted QoS intent from an intent adaptation process, or the identified configuration from a configuration recommendation process, to the first node)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0155435 to Karapantelakis et al. (hereinafter Karapantelakis), in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0351048 to Ranjan et al. (hereinafter Ranjan).
Claim 5, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 3. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the type information of the intent object comprises one or more of the following: a radio network, a radio service, a core network, a core network service, a network slice, or a communication service (Karapantelakis discloses (¶35) specifications of available QoS include consideration of parameters of Radio Access Network, Backhaul Network, and Core Network)
the granularity information of the intent object (Karapantelakis discloses (¶52) using the ML model to determine at what time the at least one QoS requirement of the QoS intent can be fulfilled, and time in this case may be measured at any appropriate degree of granularity) comprises one or more of the following: a public land mobile network (PLMN) granularity, a 5th generation (5G) quality of service indicator (5QI) granularity (Karapantelakis discloses (¶46) the policy requirements vector is generated using the 3GPP network policy control specifications such as PCRF in 4G, or a PCF in 5G), a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) granularity, a user equipment (UE) granularity, a UE group granularity, a tenant granularity, a region granularity, or a raster granularity (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies. A geographical area could for example be expressed using bounding boxes of geographical latitude and longitude or, in the case of a cellular communication network, a geographical area could be expressed using cell identifiers of the radio base stations to which the QoS intent applies.)
the network standard information of the intent object comprises: a 3rd generation (3G) network, a 4th generation (4G) network, or a 5G network (Karapantelakis discloses (¶25, ¶46) QoS management via the provision of QoS intents, which set out expectations for QoS handling of wireless devices, and may be handled in a more flexible and transparent manner than is possible under existing systems for 4G and 5G networks. The specification of QoS policies in the communication network may comprise a set of policy rules currently applied in the network and parameters specified in the policy rules. The set may be arranged as a matrix, serialized, or arranged in any other suitable manner. In the case of a 3GPP network, the policy control node may be a PCRF (4G) or a PCF (5G)).
Karapantelakis does not explicitly disclose, and the frequency domain information of the intent object comprises frequency information or frequency band information. However, in an analogous art, Ranjan teaches:
and the frequency domain information of the intent object comprises: frequency information or frequency band information (Ranjan teaches (¶46, ¶84, ¶101, ¶127, ¶137, ¶139) the indication of the radio modem information includes an indication of at least one of: a CSP; a PLMN ID; a cell ID; an EUARFCN; a frequency; a SNR; a RSRP; and a RSRQ.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine wherein the type information of the intent object comprises one or more of the following: a radio network, a radio service, a core network, a core network service, a network slice, or a communication service, the granularity information of the intent object comprises one or more of the following: a public land mobile network (PLMN) granularity, a 5th generation (5G) quality of service indicator (5QI) granularity, a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) granularity, a user equipment (UE) granularity, a UE group granularity, a tenant granularity, a region granularity, or a raster granularity, the network standard information of the intent object comprises: a 3rd generation (3G) network, a 4th generation (4G) network, or a 5G network, as disclosed by Karapantelakis, and the frequency domain information of the intent object comprises: frequency information or frequency band information, as taught by Ranjan, for the purpose of (¶1) adjusting a physical route based upon real-time connectivity data.
Claim 6, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 3. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the type information of the intent target comprises one or more of the following: a coverage-type target, a capacity-type target, a rate-type target, an energy efficiency-type target, a voice-type target, a latency-type target, or an experience-type target (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage (i.e. coverage-type target) to which the QoS intent applies. A geographical area could for example be expressed using bounding boxes of geographical latitude and longitude or, in the case of a cellular communication network, a geographical area could be expressed using cell identifiers of the radio base stations to which the QoS intent applies)
Karapantelakis does not explicitly disclose and the name information of the intent target comprises one or more of the following: a weak reference signal received power (RSRP) ratio target, a low signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) ratio target, a low-rate ratio target, a latency target, a high physical resource block (PRB) load ratio target, an energy consumption target, an energy efficiency target, or a call drop rate target. However, in an analogous art, Ranjan teaches:
and the name information of the intent target comprises one or more of the following: a weak reference signal received power (RSRP) ratio target, a low signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) ratio target, a low rate ratio target, a latency target, a high physical resource block (PRB) load ratio target, an energy consumption target, an energy efficiency target, or a call drop rate target (Ranjan teaches route predictor can subscribe to and ingest network data e.g. call trace record data, fault management data, or performance data (¶46, ¶48, ¶50) that includes in-call/in-route network connectivity details including serving cell ID, uplink, and downlink packet flow statistics, serving and neighbor downlink signal strength (e.g., RSRP), channel quality indicator (“CQI”), uplink power headroom, uplink receive signal strength indicator (“RSSI”), uplink signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (“SINR”), slice uplink and downlink throughput distribution, latency, downlink RSRP, uplink RSSI, and radio modem information such as radio link failures.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 5.
Claim 17, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 15. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the type information of the intent object comprises one or more of the following: a radio network, a radio service, a core network, a core network service, a network slice, or a communication service (Karapantelakis discloses (¶35) specifications of available QoS include consideration of parameters of Radio Access Network, Backhaul Network, and Core Network)
the granularity information of the intent object (Karapantelakis discloses (¶52) using the ML model to determine at what time the at least one QoS requirement of the QoS intent can be fulfilled, and time in this case may be measured at any appropriate degree of granularity) comprises one or more of the following: a public land mobile network (PLMN) granularity, a 5th generation (5G) quality of service indicator (5QI) granularity (Karapantelakis discloses (¶46) the policy requirements vector is generated using the 3GPP network policy control specifications such as PCRF in 4G, or a PCF in 5G), a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) granularity, a user equipment (UE) granularity, a UE group granularity, a tenant granularity, a region granularity, or a raster granularity (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage to which the QoS intent applies. A geographical area could for example be expressed using bounding boxes of geographical latitude and longitude or, in the case of a cellular communication network, a geographical area could be expressed using cell identifiers of the radio base stations to which the QoS intent applies.)
the network standard information of the intent object comprises: a 3rd generation (3G) network, a 4th generation (4G) network, or a 5G network (Karapantelakis discloses (¶25, ¶46) QoS management via the provision of QoS intents, which set out expectations for QoS handling of wireless devices, and may be handled in a more flexible and transparent manner than is possible under existing systems for 4G and 5G networks. The specification of QoS policies in the communication network may comprise a set of policy rules currently applied in the network and parameters specified in the policy rules. The set may be arranged as a matrix, serialized, or arranged in any other suitable manner. In the case of a 3GPP network, the policy control node may be a PCRF (4G) or a PCF (5G)).
Karapantelakis does not explicitly disclose and the frequency domain information of the intent object comprises: frequency information or frequency band information. However, in an analogous art, Ranjan teaches:
and the frequency domain information of the intent object comprises: frequency information or frequency band information (Ranjan teaches (¶46, ¶84, ¶101, ¶127, ¶137, ¶139) the indication of the radio modem information includes an indication of at least one of: a CSP; a PLMN ID; a cell ID; an EUARFCN; a frequency; a SNR; a RSRP; and a RSRQ.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 5.
Claim 18, Karapantelakis discloses all the elements of claim 15. Further Karapantelakis discloses:
wherein the type information of the intent target comprises one or more of the following: a coverage-type target, a capacity-type target, a rate-type target, an energy efficiency-type target, a voice-type target, a latency-type target, or an experience-type target (Karapantelakis discloses (¶34) the QoS intent may further comprise at least one of configuration policies for the identified wireless devices, and/or a geographical area of coverage (i.e. coverage-type target) to which the QoS intent applies. A geographical area could for example be expressed using bounding boxes of geographical latitude and longitude or, in the case of a cellular communication network, a geographical area could be expressed using cell identifiers of the radio base stations to which the QoS intent applies)
Karapantelakis does not explicitly disclose and the name information of the intent target comprises one or more of the following: a weak reference signal received power (RSRP) ratio target, a low signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) ratio target, a low-rate ratio target, a latency target, a high physical resource block (PRB) load ratio target, an energy consumption target, an energy efficiency target, or a call drop rate target. However, in an analogous art, Ranjan teaches:
and the name information of the intent target comprises one or more of the following: a weak reference signal received power (RSRP) ratio target, a low signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) ratio target, a low rate ratio target, a latency target, a high physical resource block (PRB) load ratio target, an energy consumption target, an energy efficiency target, or a call drop rate target (Ranjan teaches route predictor can subscribe to and ingest network data e.g. call trace record data, fault management data, or performance data (¶46, ¶48, ¶50) that includes in-call/in-route network connectivity details including serving cell ID, uplink, and downlink packet flow statistics, serving and neighbor downlink signal strength (e.g., RSRP), channel quality indicator (“CQI”), uplink power headroom, uplink receive signal strength indicator (“RSSI”), uplink signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (“SINR”), slice uplink and downlink throughput distribution, latency, downlink RSRP, uplink RSSI, and radio modem information such as radio link failures.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 5.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0380887 to Parker et al. (Intent-driven network analytics for predictive network slice management)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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:/Awww.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.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights