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 filed 7/8/25 has been considered. However, the filing of over one thousand pages of 3GPP standards documents renders it difficult to determine what information applicant believes is material to patentability such that they had a duty to submit it. Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. See MPEP 609.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kahn et al. US 2022/0174514 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kahn discloses a control entity for configuring a reliability level of a communication service in a network slice of a communication network, the control entity comprising: a processor and a memory (network has control function and network node has processor and memory – Fig. 6, paragraph 65) that cause the control entity to:
determine one or more operational conditions of one or more user entities (UE – Fig. 2, abstract, paragraph 4; operating condition, “use case” e.g. industrial automation, mission critical application, etc. – see paragraphs 2, 16-17); and
determine a target reliability level of the communication service in the network slice of the one or more user entities based on the determined one or more operational conditions (network slice – Figs. 1, 4 and paragraphs 19-20; the operating condition “use case” determines the reliability requirements – paragraphs 2, 16 and 19-24).
Regarding claim 2, Kahn discloses enforce the target reliability level of the communication service in the network slice of the one or more user entities or provide the target reliability level to a network entity for the enforcement (slices are configured to satisfy the reliability requirement – paragraph 19; thus the reliability level is “enforced” and the target reliability level is also communicated via the network configuration; also, a PCF – see Fig. 2 performs policy enforcement).
Regarding claim 9, Kahn discloses determine the one or more operational conditions of the one or more user entities (paragraphs 19, 24).
Regarding claim 10, Kahn discloses the operational conditions of the user entities comprise at least one of: … a type of task or operations performed (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 11, Kahn discloses the user entities comprise a first group of one or more user entities and a second group of one or more user entities (each end stations includes one or more UE – see Fig. 2, paragraph 32), and the operational conditions of the user entities comprise one or more distances between a respective user entity of the first group and a respective user entity of the first or second group (it is inherent there is distance between the user equipment – paragraph 21, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kahn discloses a PCF configured to maintain and/or generate or update the dynamic reliability policy information (PCF – paragraph 32, Fig. 2; PCF stands for “policy control”, thus it maintains or generates or updates policy information).
Regarding claim 17, it is directed to a network entity which corresponds to the control entity of claim 1; the corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. See the rejection of claim 2 which discusses enforcing the reliability level. Kahn also discloses receiving/enforcing a second target reliability level or providing the second target reliability level (the process of Fig. 4 which enforces or communicates reliability requirements is performed multiple times, thus there is at least a second target reliability level, also see paragraph 42 which explicitly discloses communicating reliability info for each respective service).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn.
Regrading claim 3, Kahn discloses store dynamic reliability policy information related to the one or more user entities using the network slice, and determine the target reliability level of the communication service in the network slice of the one or more user entities based on the determined … policy information (QoS policy to determine reliability requirements – see paragraphs 24 and 42).
Kahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the policy comprises a correlation between a plurality of operational conditions for the one or more user entities and a plurality of reliability levels but it suggests this by teaching a plurality of conditions (e.g. mission critical application, industrial automation) and specifying “reliability requirements” (plural – paragraphs 2, 16, 24). By teaching different operation conditions and multiple reliability requirements, Kahn implicitly suggests a correlation between operational conditions and a plurality of reliability levels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to correlate operating conditions with a plurality of reliability levels as recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Kahn discloses select the target reliability level from a plurality of reliability levels (see rejection above). Kahn does not explicitly disclose having different percentage values of packet delivery success rate but this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on Kahn’s teaching of configuring reliability requirements. Packet data success/delivery rate is a well-known KPI in the art. Thus, this is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 8, Kahn discloses determine the one or more operational conditions of the one or more user entities as explained above. Kahn does not explicitly disclose using an intelligence methodology with a trained model but this is merely the abstract idea of observing and classifying which can be performed in the human mind. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to use a trained model to make observations. This is merely the incorporation of an extremely well-known routine and conventional technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Cheng et al. US 2019/0230645 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Kahn discloses expose the stored dynamic reliability policy information related to the one or more user entities so that stored dynamic reliability policy information is configurable by an application entity (use policy for configuration – paragraph 24). Kahn does not explicitly disclose generate and/or update the dynamic reliability policy information based on a reliability configuration received from the application entity or from a network entity, but this is taught by Cheng (generate configuration including policies – see paragraphs 75, 83 and Figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng with the policy generate/update feature taught by Cheng for the purpose of managing reliability requirements in a network. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ability to update policy/configuration renders the system dynamic which provides many benefits such as responding to network changes or issues.
Regarding claim 16, it is directed to an application entity which in part corresponds to the control entity of claim 1; the corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. As explained above, Cheng does not explicitly disclose generate/update dynamic reliability policy information or a correlation between a plurality of operational conditions and a plurality of reliability levels. However, the generate/update policy is taught by Cheng as explained above, the motivation to combine is the same. And the correlation is obvious in view of Kahn (see rejection of claim 3).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Villasante Marcos et al. US 2022/0385543 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Kahn discloses determine the one or more operational conditions of the one or more user entities … and determine the target reliability level … based on the operational conditions of the one or more user entities (see rejection of claim 1). Kahn does not explicitly disclose estimating, at a first point in time, conditions and a second point in time later than the first but this is taught by Villasante Marcos as estimating network conditions (abstract, paragraphs 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn with the estimation technique taught by Villasante Marco. Villasante Marco teaches that estimation provides network slice KPI information which is useful for checking SLA requirements (paragraphs 37-38).
Regarding claim 7, Kahn discloses determine the one or more operational conditions as discussed above. Kahn does not explicitly disclose estimating the one or more operational conditions based on previously determined one or more operational conditions of the one or more user entities. However, this is taught by Villasante Marcos as estimate network conditions based on previous measurements (abstract, paragraphs 2, 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn with the estimation technique taught by Villasante Marco. Villasante Marco teaches that estimation is important and improves network performance (paragraphs 30-33).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Koch US 2016/0094592 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Kahn discloses the user entities comprise a first group of one or more user entities and a second group of one or more user entities (each end stations includes one or more UE – see Fig. 2, paragraph 32).
Kahn does not explicitly disclose the one or more operational conditions comprise a number of collaborative tasks performed by the at least one entity of the first group and the at least one user entity of the second group but this is taught by Koch as the operational condition of user equipment is that the user device is part of a group for task collaboration (abstract, paragraph 37, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to consider collaboration tasks as an operating condition. It is very well-known in the art that a group of devices performs collaborative task processing. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Ping et al. US 2024/0306042 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Kahn discloses determine the one or more operational conditions of the one or more user entities and to determine the target reliability level of the one more user entities (see rejection of claim 1). Kahn does not explicitly disclose a NWDAF, wherein the NWDAF or network intelligent function is configured to … but this is taught by Ping as a NWDAF for fulfilling service requirements (abstract, Fig. 5, paragraph 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to use network intelligence/NWDAF. Ping suggests this provides optimization (paragraph 46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of features recited by claim 12 when considered as a whole distinguishes over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Kattepur and S. Mohalik, "AI Planning for Tele-operated Robotic Network Slice Reconfiguration," 2021 IEEE 4th 5G World Forum (5GWF), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2021, pp. 447-452, discloses configuring network slices for use with human robot interactions and a plurality of reliability levels correlating with a plurality of operating conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights