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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 27, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20070244800 A1) in view of Colmenares Diaz (US 20230141570 A1) and if further view of Niemoller (TR291C Proposal of Best Intent Model v1.1.0, 2022).
As for Claims 1 and 12, Lee discloses
A method for an intent handler implemented by a first electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving, at the intent handler implemented by the first electronic device an intent request from an intent owner implemented by a second electronic device (i.e. the DA (intent handler) receives a CFP (Call For Proposal) from the MMA (intent owner))(¶0049),
wherein the intent request comprises one or more expectations and one or more parameters including a maximum proposal time parameter(i.e. The CFP or “intent request” contains the work/service conditions and requirements (expectations) that the DA is suppose to use when formulating its proposal. The CFP or “intent request” contains a reply-by attribute (maximum proposal time parameter) which is used to indicate the deadline by when the receiver (in this case, a DA) should respond with a "propose" message.)(¶0046-0048);
wherein the one or more expectations define requirements for a service to be delivered (i.e. the CFP identifies work/services and their preferences/ constraints that the DA may propose to perform.)(¶0049))
Lee fails to disclose, determining a proposal time based on an estimated time to process the intent request; in response to determining that the proposal time is less than or equal to the maximum proposal time parameter, determining a proposal for the intent request based on the one or more expectations; and in response to determining that the proposal time is less than or equal to the maximum proposal time parameter, sending, to the intent owner, the proposal.
In an analogous art, Colmenares Diaz discloses,
determining a proposal time based on an estimated time to process the intent request (i.e. if the estimated response time (proposal time) satisfies the SLO (expectations) of the request, then process the query.)(¶0054-0055; Operation 305 and 310 – Fig. 3)
in response to determining that the proposal time is less than or equal to the maximum proposal time parameter (i.e. if the estimated response time(proposal time) is less than or equal to the estimated processing time determined from the query type (maximum proposal time parameter) included in the query)(¶0027-0030), determining a proposal for the intent request based on the one or more expectations (i.e. if the estimated response time(generated from estimated processing time + query) satisfies the SLO (expectation) of the request, then process query and send response(proposal) to client)(¶0054-0060; Operation 335 – Fig.3),
and in response to determining that the proposal time is less than or equal to the maximum proposal time parameter, sending, to the intent owner, the proposal(i.e. the server sends the response to the client if the estimated response time is less than the estimated processing time generated from the query type(maximum proposal time parameter)(Operation 320-335 – Fig.3, Operation 430 – Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include determining (510) a proposal time based on an estimated time to process the intent request in response to determining that the proposal time is less than or equal to the maximum proposal time parameter, determining (515) a proposal for the intent request based on the one or more expectations and in response to determining that the proposal time is less than or equal to the maximum proposal time parameter, sending (520), to the intent owner, the proposal as taught by Colmenares Diaz for the benefit of improving the responsiveness of the intent handling system.
Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz does not disclose and wherein the proposal comprises one or more report parameters for an estimated delivery of the service using an autonomous domain.
In an analogous art, Niemoller discloses,
and wherein the proposal comprises one or more report parameters for an estimated delivery of the service using an autonomous domain (i.e. In the intent the proposal is asked for the throughput parameter in the property expectation. In the respective property expectation report the proposal is provided using the pbi: best property. Here, the intent handler states that it would currently be able to comply to a throughput requirement of at least 20 MBPS.. The intent report is a hypothetical report based entirely on a state prediction (estimates) by the intent handler)(Section 5.2, ¶02-04);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz to include and wherein the proposal comprises one or more report parameters for an estimated delivery of the service using an autonomous domain as taught by Niemoller for the benefit of enabling automated handling of the request without operator intervention.
As for Claim 11, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in
scope to Claim 1, with Lee further teaching the intent handler being a computer containing a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and processor.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller and in further view of Patodia (US 20220006706 A1).
As for Claims 2 and 13, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller fails to disclose, wherein the one or more parameters further includes a minimum accuracy level parameter and wherein determining the proposal is also based on whether a proposal accuracy level satisfies the minimum accuracy level parameter.
In an analogous art, Patodia discloses,
wherein the one or more parameters further includes a minimum accuracy level parameter (i.e. the input component can receive from a computing client a requested SLA)(¶0040)
and wherein determining the proposal is also based on whether a proposal accuracy level satisfies the minimum accuracy level parameter(The requested SLA can indicate a response quality threshold to be satisfied by the computing service. In various cases, the response quality threshold can be a minimum level of accuracy, completeness, and/or confidence (e.g., optimized, high, intermediate, degraded) that the computing client desires to allow the computing service (e.g., when prompted by a computing request from the computing client, the computing service must provide a response having an accuracy, completeness, and/or confidence that is not less than the response quality threshold)(¶0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller to include wherein the one or more parameters further includes a minimum accuracy level parameter and wherein determining the proposal is also based on whether a proposal accuracy level satisfies the minimum accuracy level parameter as taught by Patodia for the benefit of ensuring responses meet expectations.
Claims 3-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, Patodia, and in further view of Snyder (US 20210044496 A1).
As for Claims 3 and 14, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, and Patodia disclose, in particular Niemoller teaches,
wherein the one or more machine learning models (i.e. Niemoller’s ml models used for prediction)(Section 5.2, ¶02-04) determine the estimated delivery (i.e. predicting the expected outcome of a proposed action on metrics relevant to fulfilling the service intent) (Section 5.2, ¶02-04) of the service using the autonomous domain (the service intent manager delivering a service instance satisfying intent requirements)(Section 5.2, ¶02-04).
Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, and Patodia fails to disclose determining the proposal accuracy level based on model accuracy levels of one or more trained machine learning models.
In an analogous art, Snyder discloses,
determining the proposal accuracy level based on model accuracy levels of one or more trained machine learning models (i.e. The trained model predicts whether QOS requirements of a service will be met(output) and assigns likelihood values to the predicted operation outcome based on confidence values (accuracy level report parameter) generated by the cognitive system)(¶0043 and 0050)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, and Patodia to include determining the proposal accuracy level based on model accuracy levels of one or more trained machine learning models as taught by Snyder for the benefit of ensuring responses meet a required level of quality and accuracy. While Niemoller does not explicitly teach a trained machine learning model to predict service outcomes, Snyder teaches using a trained machine learning model (Snyder, ¶0048) to generate predicted operation outcomes indicative of expected service performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to employ the trained machine learning techniques of Snyder in Niemollers predictive framework to estimate service outcomes.
As for Claims 4 and 15, Lee, Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, Patodia and Snyder disclose, in particular Patodia teaches
wherein the one or more report parameters comprise an accuracy level report parameter(i.e. act 1402 can include transmitting, by the device (e.g., 1102), a message in response to the requested SLA. In various aspects, the message can indicate a first maximum response quality(one of the SLA is accuracy) achievable by the computing service within the response time threshold of the requested SLA)(¶0140) and determining the proposal comprises determining the accuracy level report parameter(the proposal that is sent is based on determining the maximum response quality of the SLA (accuracy))(¶0140).
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 3.
As for Claims 5 and 16, Lee, Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, Patodia, and Snyder disclose, in particular Snyder teaches,
wherein determining the proposal comprises: determining one or more outputs from a trained machine learning model of the one or more trained machine learning models(i.e. The trained model predicts whether QOS requirements of a service will be met(output) )(¶0043); and determining the accuracy level report parameter using a model accuracy level of the one or more outputs(i.e. Assigning likelihood values to the predicted operation outcome based on confidence values (accuracy level report parameter) generated by the cognitive system)(¶0050).
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 3.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller and in further view of Xu (WO 2020200033 A1).
As for Claims 6 and 17, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller fails to disclose allocating one or more network elements of the autonomous domain to delivery of the service according to the proposal.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses,
allocating one or more network elements of the autonomous domain to delivery of the service according to the proposal (i.e. Alternatively, the intent management device may also determine the network intent according to the business intent proposed by the required device, and transfer the network intent to the network management device, so that the network management device can configure the corresponding network according to the network intent.)(¶0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller to include allocating one or more network elements of the autonomous domain to delivery of the service according to the proposal as taught by Xu for the benefit of ensuring proper network configuration.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller and in further view of Moore (US 20130235416 A1).
As for Claims 7 and 18, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller fails to disclose determining a time when the intent request is received and determining the proposal time as a sum of the estimated time to process the intent request and the time the intent request is received.
In an analogous art, Moore discloses,
determining a time when the intent request is received(i.e. receipt time; A receipt time may refer to the time at which a job is received for processing)(¶0032); and determining the proposal time as a sum of the estimated time to process the intent request and the time the intent request is received(i.e. A completion time(proposal time) may be determined based on the receipt time and the turnaround time(estimated time to process request) associated with the job. For example, a completion time may be a time equal to the receipt time plus the turnaround time. For instance, if a job is received at 12 p.m., and the turnaround time associated with the job is five hours, the completion time may be 5 p.m.)(¶0032)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller to include determining a time when the intent request is received and determining the proposal time as a sum of the estimated time to process the intent request and the time the intent request is received as taught by Moore for the benefit of determining the proposal time.
Claims 8-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller and in further view of Phaal (US 6055564 A).
As for Claims 8 and 19, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller fails to disclose determining a priority of the intent request; and determining a send time using the priority and the proposal time, wherein the sending the proposal comprises sending the proposal before or at the send time.
In an analogous art, Phaal discloses,
determining a priority of the intent request (i.e. One form of the invention provides a host processing system which allocates incoming messages (requests) according to an indicator of priority or class ("priority indicator") associated with each message; the indicator can be assigned by a host, by an admission control system, by the client itself, or by the message's ultimate destination) (Col.2 lines 43-54));
and determining a send time using the priority and the proposal time (i.e. In the preferred embodiment, admission control software operates principally on a server and formats a special web page which is downloaded to the client as part of a deferral message. This special web page provides a countdown function (proposal time), visible to the client's user, which indicates time until re-submission(send time) in minutes or seconds. The client is given a resubmission appointment based on when the server expects it can provide priority processing to that deferred request.)(Col.4 lines 50-64, Col.9 lines 25-55),
wherein the sending the proposal comprises sending the proposal before
or at the send time (sends the response at resubmission)(Col.10 lines 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz and Niemoller to include determining a priority of the intent request; and determining a send time using the priority and the proposal time, wherein the sending the proposal comprises sending the proposal before or at the send time as taught by Phaal for the benefit of prioritizing requests.
As for Claims 9 and 20, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, and Phaal disclose, in particular Phaal teaches,
wherein determining the priority of the intent request comprises: determining the priority of the intent request based on the intent owner. (i.e., One form of the invention provides a host processing system which allocates incoming messages (requests) according to an indicator of priority or class ("priority indicator") associated with each message; the indicator can be assigned by a host, by an admission control system, by the client itself, or by the message's ultimate destination))(Col. 2, lines 43-54)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 8.
As for Claim 10, Lee in view of Colmenares Diaz, Niemoller, and Phaal disclose, in particular Phaal teaches,
wherein the one or more expectations of the intent request include the priority (i.e. One form of the invention provides a host processing system which allocates incoming messages (requests) according to an indicator of priority or class ("priority indicator") associated with each message; the indicator can be assigned by a host, by an admission control system, by the client itself, or by the message's ultimate destination) (Col. 2, lines 43-54)
Motivation to combine is similar to that of Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ESTRADA whose telephone number is (571) 272-9978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM EST to 4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRIS 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://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.
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.
/JONATHAN ESTRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights