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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “and/or” is objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it does not fall within one of the four categories of patentable subject matter of 35 U.S.C § 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims recite, among other things, “A computer program product comprising executable instructions which, when executed, implement the method of claim 14.”, as best understood a computer program product may be transitory or non-transitory, and transitory form per se is not a patentable subject matter according to the interim guidelines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1-2, 14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2020/0252908) in view of Peng et al (US 2020/0178093). Hereinafter referred to as Liu and Peng.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20-21. Liu discloses a system for wireless communication, comprising: one or more intra-slice managers, at least one of the one or more intra-slice managers is configured for collecting scenario information of a corresponding Radio Access Network (RAN) slice of a plurality of RAN slices in a wireless network , wherein, the scenario information is used for determining at least the following information: a RAN slice spectrum resource requirement (see at least abstract and paragraphs [0003], [0042]-[0044], [0047] and figures 2 and 7), a first management means, configured for determining an orchestration or re-orchestration scheme of spectrum resources among the plurality of RAN slices at least based on the scenario information, wherein the orchestration or re-orchestration scheme of spectrum resources among the plurality of RAN slices includes a first characteristic and quantity of spectrum resources to be allocated to at least one RAN slice of the plurality of RAN slices (see at least abstract and paragraphs [0003], [0042]-[0044], [0047] and figures 2 and 7).
Liu discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the scenario information is used for determining at least the following information: an interference relation between RAN slices, and a RAN slice priority. However, Peng, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the scenario information is used for determining at least the following information: an interference relation between RAN slices, and a RAN slice priority (see at least abstract and claim 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Peng, as indicated, into the communication method of managing resources allocation and improve agility.
Regarding claim 2. Liu in view of Peng discloses a system wherein the scenario information at least indicates one or more of the following: a base station position, base station transmit power, a spectrum resource requirement of a base station and a communication service requirement (see at least abstract, and paragraphs [0005], [0007]-[0008], and [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 and 15-19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476