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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-30-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the argument: “The references of record do not teach or suggest configuring a first association "indicative of the first radio resource configuration for implementation, within a first network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more first wireless communication devices. . . having the first device type of the plurality of device types and located within the first network slice" and configuring a second association "indicative of the second radio resource configuration for implementation, within a second network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more second wireless communication devices ... having the first device type and located within the second network slice" as recited in amended claim 1.”; the examiner’s position is that although the claim amendment improve the claim limitations, the claims still use language that suggest but does not require; thereby, applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed or required. For example, limitations after “configuration for” are a description of intended use; thereby, they are not required to be a part of the method nor the device. The examiner invites the applicant to avoid the use of language that suggests but does not require
Applicant submits: “Applicant respectfully disagrees and further submits that the "associations" of claim 1 are not merely descriptive language, but rather are structural elements that are affirmatively configured by the wireless communication node and then transmitted in a signal. For instance, claim 1 recites a "configuring" step that configures the plurality of associations, including (i) configuring the first association and (ii) configuring the second association.”; the examiner’s position is that although the argument allege that associations are not merely descriptive language, but rather are structural elements, by definition an association is a connection, relationship, etc., which may include abstract relationships; thereby, association are relative language that may suggest but fail to require. The examiner invites the applicant to avoid the use of language that suggests but does not require.
In view of the argument: “However, even if the UE characteristics described in Selvaganapathy somehow relates to "device types" as recited in amended claim 1 (which Applicant does not agree with or acquiesce to), nowhere does Selvaganapathy contemplate actually "configuring ... associations between the plurality of device types and the plurality of network slices" as recited in amended claim 1. Selvaganapathy's subgroups are at most merely groupings of paging occasions based on UE capability, not associations that link device types to specific radio resource configurations within particular network slices. Moreover, Selvaganapathy fails to describe an affirmative configuring step for associations, and fails to describe devices having a specific first device type implement different radio resource configurations depending on whether the devices are located within the "first network slice" or the "second network slice." Applicant respectfully submits that Selvaganapathy does not teach or suggest any device-type and network-slice based differentiation, let alone the affirmative configuring of such associations as recited in amended claim 1.”; the examiner’s position is that configuring or assigning more than one resource reads on the limitation, if applicant’s “association” is different, the examiner invites the applicant to include the differences in the claims for proper consideration.
For the argument: “However, the absence of "network slices" is not the only deficiency in Selvaganapathy. For instance, even if Lindheimer were to teach or suggest network slices (which Applicant does not agree with or acquiesce to), Selvaganapathy (either alone or in combination with Lindheimer) still fails to teach or suggest the recited "configuring . .. associations between the plurality of device types and the plurality of network slices." In other words, merely adding network slices to the paging occasion subgroups of Selvaganapathy still would not teach or suggest the recited configuring of associations of amended claim 1. In particular, the combination would still not teach or suggest an affirmative configuring step for associations, and would still not teach or suggest that, for example, devices having the "first device type" implement different radio resource configurations depending on whether the devices are located within the "first network slice" or the "second network slice."; the examiner’s position as previously indicated in the previous paragraphs configuring resources is equated to configuring associations, if applicant have any measurable difference in the association the examiner invites the applicant to include the differences in the claims for proper consideration.
The rest of the arguments fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvaganapathy 20210337507 in view of Lindheimer 20200288423.
As to claim 1, Selvaganapathy discloses a method comprising:
configuring, by a wireless communication node [ENB], a radio resource configuration for a plurality of device types and a plurality of network resources, wherein the radio resource configuration comprises a first radio resource configuration for a first device type and a second radio resource configuration for the first device type (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; first subgroup of multiple PO subgroups are divided),
configuring, by the wireless communication node, a plurality of associations between the plurality of device types and the plurality of network slices, wherein configuring the plurality of associations comprises:
configuring a first association indicative of the first radio resource configuration for implementation, within a first network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more first wireless communication devices of a plurality of wireless communication devices having the first device type of the plurality of device types and located within the first network slice (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; first subgroup of multiple PO subgroups are broadcasted); and
configuring a second association indicative of the second radio resource configuration for implementation, within a second network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more second wireless communication devices of the plurality of wireless communication devices having the first device type and located within the second network slice [please note that the present claim is trying to differentiate a claim by describing associations; associations are a description of a relationship which does not require an actual modification to the claim language] [In the absence of disclosing that the first and second items are different, it is assumed that they are the same] (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; second subgroup of multiple PO subgroups are broadcasted); and
transmitting, by the wireless communication node, a signal to a plurality of wireless communication devices of different device types, wherein the signal comprises a plurality of associations between the plurality of device types and the plurality of network resources, including the first association and the second association [such as paging occasion, drx cycles paging time window, subgroups, etc.]. Selvaganapathy fails to disclose network slices. In an analogous art, Lindheimer discloses a first and second network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more first and second wireless communication devices of the plurality of wireless communication devices having a first and second device type of the plurality of device types and located within the first and second network resource (see par. 0205). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use network slices to customize the network resources for each type of device and service, thereby, improving services and maximizing network resources.
As to claim 8, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
configuring, by the wireless communication node, different paging cycles for the plurality of wireless communication devices based on at least one of the plurality of device types or the plurality of network types [the ENB determines a PO subgroup for GWUS within the at least one DRX cycles according to Paging configuration for GWUS capable UE, and determines another PO subgroup for WUS within the at least one DRX cycles according to Paging configuration for WUS] (see par. 0025-0026, 0050). Selvaganapathy fails to disclose network slices. In an analogous art, Lindheimer discloses network slices, (see par. 0205). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use network slices to customize the network resources for each type of device and service, thereby, improving services and maximizing network resources.
As to claim 9, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
configuring, by the wireless communication node, different modification periods for a system information change (see par. 0034).
As to claim 10, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
configuring, by the wireless communication node, different modification periods for different system information elements groups based on at least one of different network types, different network identifiers, different beams or the corresponding channel status information-reference signal (CSI-RS) resources, different slices, or device types (see par. 0044-0045),
wherein the different network types correspond to at least one of a cell access group (CAG), a standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN), or a standalone public land mobile network (PLMN),
wherein the different network identifiers correspond to at least one of a PLMN, a Tracking Area Code (TAC), a CAG identifier, or a SNPN identifier.
Although Selvaganapathy does not disclose the intended use of wherein the device types correspond to at least one of an industry sensor, a video surveillance, or a wearable device, it is noted that the system will work equally well since it has been held that the omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the device type to the desire type for the simple purpose of customizing the network resources for the need of the device; thereby, improving the communication.
As to claims 11, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring, by the wireless communication node, different modification periods for different system information elements groups (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; multiple PO subgroups are broadcasted).
As to claim 13, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
indicating, by the wireless communication node, modification period information in a paging message, wherein the modification period information indicative of one or more modification periods to adopt (see par. 0034).
As to claim 14, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 13, wherein a wireless communication device of the plurality of wireless communication devices determines the modification period information based on a device type (see par. 0025, 0045).
As to claim 15, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the wireless communication device of the plurality of wireless communication devices: receives the paging message comprising a bitmap indicative of affected device types; and determines the modification period information based on the affected device types (see par. 0032).
As to claim 16, Selvaganapathy discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
transmitting, by the wireless communication node, a paging message indicative of one or more modification periods (see par. 0025-0026, 0034, 0050).
As to claim 17, Selvaganapathy discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless communication device, a signal from a wireless communication node, wherein the signal comprises a radio resource configuration for a plurality of device types and a plurality of network resources, wherein the radio resource configuration comprises a first radio resource configuration for a first device type and a second radio resource configuration for the first device type[such as paging occasion, drx cycles paging time window, subgroups, etc.]., wherein the signal is broadcasted to a plurality of wireless communication devices of different device types, wherein the signal indicates a plurality of associations configured between the plurality of device types and the plurality of network slices, and wherein configuration of the plurality of associations includes the wireless communication node to:
configure a first association indicative of the first radio resource configuration for implementation, within a first network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more first wireless communication devices of the plurality of wireless communication devices having the first device type of the plurality of device types and located within the first network slice (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; first subgroup of multiple PO subgroups are divided), and
configure a second association indicative of the second radio resource configuration for implementation, within a second network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more second wireless communication devices of the plurality of wireless communication devices having the first device type and located within the second network slice [please note that the present claim is trying to differentiate a claim by describing associations; associations are a description of a relationship which does not require an actual modification to the claim language] [In the absence of disclosing that the first and second items are different, it is assumed that they are the same] (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; second subgroup of multiple PO subgroups are broadcasted); and
configuring, by the wireless communication device, a first paging cycle according to the first radio resource configuration based on the wireless communication device (i) having the first device type of the plurality of device types and (ii) corresponding to a first network resource within the plurality of network resource, wherein the signal includes at least one second paging cycle for the second radio resource configuration that is different than the first paging cycle and corresponds to one or more wireless communication devices having the first device type and corresponding to the second network resource within the plurality of network resource [please note that the present claim is trying to differentiate a claim by describing associations; associations are a description of a relationship which does not require an actual modification to the claim language] (see fig. 1, step S101; abstract; second subgroup of multiple PO subgroups are broadcasted). Selvaganapathy fails to disclose network slices. In an analogous art, Lindheimer discloses a first and second network slice of the plurality of network slices, by one or more first and second wireless communication devices of the plurality of wireless communication devices having a first and second device type of the plurality of device types and located within the first and second network resource (see par. 0205). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use network slices to customize the network resources for each type of device and service, thereby improving services and maximizing network resources.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, they are the corresponding a wireless communication node and wireless communication device of claims 1 and 17. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights