DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Appeal Brief filed on 4/13/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are presented for examination.
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 04/13/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options: (1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or, (2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed on 4/13/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 with respect to Claims 1-20 are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caceres et al. (hereinafter Caceres) US 2021/0400572 A1 in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) US 2022/0007451 A1 and further in view of Guichard et al. (hereinafter Guichard) US 2010/0110908 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Caceres teaches a cellular network test system (Fig. 2), comprising:
a cellular network (Fig. 2; MNO 111) comprising a radio access network (RAN) (Fig. 2; RAN 240), a cellular network core (Figs. 2-3; core network 113 that is 5G network as in Fig. 3), and an integrated test system (Figs. 2-3; management system 105);
a plurality of user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2; UE(s) 101), wherein:
each UE is a cellular-enabled computerized device comprising a cellular modem and a wireless network interface (Figs. 2-3 & ¶0011; UE used to access applications or services);
each UE is configured to communicate with the cellular network using the RAN of the cellular network (Fig. 2 & ¶0054; UEs communicate with MNO Network 111);
and each UE is configured to communicate with a first external local network that is separate and distinct from the cellular network (Figs. 2-3 & ¶0057-¶0061; UEs communicate with data networks 260 that includes a LAN [external local network] e.g., RAN 240 can facilitate communication sessions between UEs 101 and data network 260 by communicating application-specific data between RAN 240 and core network 113. As described herein, data network 260 can include various types of data networks, such as the Internet, a third-party services network, an operator services network, a private network, a wide area network, and/or the like);
and the first external local network that hosts a service for the plurality of UE (Figs. 2-3 & ¶0061-¶0062; Data network 260 [external local network] enable UEs 101 to communication via different type of networks and cloud computing network [services] with Application platform 103 [service]. ¶0011; UE used to access applications or services),
wherein the integrated test system of the cellular network configures at least a subset of the UE for a test of the service hosted by the first external local network (¶0020-¶0021 & ¶0056; management system 105 deploys NSI and others to enables the application platform 103 to utilize the user-based slicing service. The management system 105 may determine a plurality of levels of service, slice information associated with the plurality of levels of service. The slice information associated with a level of service may include information identifying a type of network slice (e.g., a slice identifier) associated with the level of service. Also ¶0010-¶0019; network slice configuration may be defined according to a fixed slice description associated with the UE, the application, and/or the service. In this way, the wireless telecommunication system may allocate different types of network slices (e.g., network slices providing different qualities or levels of service) based on the UE, the application, and/or the service. In some situations, users of an application may have subscribed to different levels of service (e.g., different amounts of bandwidth, different priorities, and/or the like). In this way, a network may perform automated user-based network slicing. User-based network slicing may enable the network to provide different levels of service to different users that are utilizing the same UE (e.g., at different times) to access an application and/or service provided by the network).
and the integrated test system is implemented on a cloud computing platform or a dedicated server system (Fig. 2 & ¶0055; see MNO network 111; cellular network. ¶0060; core network 113 may be managed by management system 105. ¶0065 & Figs. 4-5; may be implemented on a computing device of a clou d computing environment).
Caceres does not expressly teach wherein the test causes at least the subset of the UE to intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof when communicating with the service hosted by the first external network;
Wang teaches wherein the test causes at least the subset of the UE to intentionally introduce… when communicating with the service hosted by the first external network (Figs. 11-12 & ¶0066-¶0077, ¶0105-¶0163; UE receives a test scenario via a DL SON message where the message 524 may also specify how the radio access network parameter 602 is to be configured for the test scenario 502 for a particular wireless connection or include other attributes of the test scenario 502 as described above with reference to FIG. 6 [intentionally introduce]. Further, the SON facilitator 332 directs a wireless network to undergo a testing scenario as an experimental round intended to gradually discover iterative network performance improvements using a guided scheme).
It would have been obvious to one of ordering skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the system of Caceres in order to test UE on a network. Utilizing such teachings increase reliability during the test scenario, the UE can be provisioned with two wireless connections. A first connection is unchanged by the test scenario for stability, and a second connection is used for testing (abstract).
Caceres in view of Wang does not expressly teach “…intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof…”
Guichard is directed to a testing tool 10 where the testing is placed between two network end system 12 and 14 “integrated test system.” See Fig. 2 & ¶0016-¶0023. The testing tool 10 is a network testing system, see ¶0033-¶0035.
Guichard teaches wherein the test causes at least the subset of the UE to intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof (Fig. 3 & ¶0022-¶0029; operator applies latency or jitter to packet streams e.g., operator enters latency and jitter values into the user interface. ¶0033-¶0037; tool 10 described above with respect to FIG. 1 may also be referred to as a network testing system that includes a computer having a user interface and a real time clock, that is operable to select a packet transmitted within a network to be tested for the addition of latency and jitter based on an identifier within the packet and select a latency and jitter to be applied to the selected packet) when communicating with the service hosted by the first external network (Fig. 1 packet flows between network endpoints. Also see ¶0033; the user interface is operable to enter a virtual LAN identifier, a destination port, a latency value and a jitter value, and further operable to determine whether a packet identifier within a packet received at the first interface matches the virtual LAN identifier entered via the user interface); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate teachings of Guichard into the system of Caceres in view of Wang in order to apply jitter or latency during active communication path to determine how much a system may tolerate jitter or latency (Fig. 3). Utilizing such teachings enable the administrator to measure performance, analyze it and modify the testing as needed.
Regarding Claim 2, Caceres-Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the integrated test system of the cellular network is configured to perform a set of baseline measurements on the service prior to the test of the service being performed (see ¶0057 & ¶0068-¶0073; obvious from QoS measurements before first and second test where previous test scenario is feed back into the mechanism. Also see Guichard in fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Caceres-Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the test of the service is selected from a test profile datastore of the integrated test system of the cellular network (¶0066-¶0072; obvious because previous test scenario may be used and feed back into the mechanism).
Regarding Claim 4, Caceres- Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 3, Wang further teaches wherein the test is selected at least partially based on a type of the service and a type of the UE (¶0067-¶0073; obvious because the test depends on “how much or what portions of a wireless network is or are being enhanced using a given test scenario 502.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Caceres-Wang and further in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 1, Caceres teaches further comprising: a second external local network that hosts the service for a second plurality of UE (Fig. 2 & ¶0061; network 260 includes one or more LANs), and the second external local network is separate and distinct from the first external local network (Fig. 2 & ¶0061; network 260 includes one or more LANs).
Caceres does not expressly teach “wherein: the integrated test system of the cellular network configures at least a second subset of the UE for a second test of the service by the second external local network;”
Wang teaches wherein: the integrated test system of the cellular network configures at least a second subset of the UE for a second test of the service by the second external local network (¶0067-¶0073; the test may include different UEs).
Regarding Claim 6, Caceres-Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 5, Wang further teaches wherein the integrated test system of the cellular network is further configured to perform a comparison using results of the test with results of the second test (¶0066-¶0073 & ¶0104; These different network performance characteristics may be different as compared to those experienced with the first wireless connection 311, with a previous version of the second wireless connection 312, or another earlier wireless connection).
Regarding Claims 7 & 17, Caceres-Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 1, Caceres further teaches wherein a core of the cellular network and the integrated test system of the cellular network are hosted on a public cloud computing platform (Fig. 2 & ¶0055; see MNO network 111; cellular network. ¶0065; may be implemented on a computing device of a cloud computing environment).
Regarding Claim 8, Caceres-Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 1, Wang teaches wherein configuring the subset of UE comprises configuring the subset of UE to communicate with the service hosted by the first external local network via the cellular network despite being connected with the first external local network (¶0066-¶0073 & ¶0103; selected UEs are directed to communicate with a base station using one specific wireless connection).
Regarding Claims 10 & 20, Caceres-Wang in view of Guichard teaches the cellular network test system of claim 1, Caceres further teaches, wherein the cellular network is a 5G New Radio (NR) cellular network (¶0055; 5G network).
Regarding Claim 11, Caceres teaches a method for testing a network external to a cellular network (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
accessing an external local network by a cellular network test system integrated as part of the cellular network (Figs. 2-3; management system 105 accesses external local network 260 which is associated with a level of service and slicing information);
the plurality of UE are configured to communicate with the cellular network and with the external local network (Fig. 2; UEs communicates with core network 113 and data network 260);
communicating, by the cellular network test system of the cellular network, with a plurality of user equipment (UE) to configure the plurality of UE to perform a test of a service on the external local network (¶0020-¶0021 & ¶0056; management system 105 deploys NSI and others to enables the application platform 103 to utilize the user-based slicing service. The management system 105 may determine a plurality of levels of service, slice information associated with the plurality of levels of service. The slice information associated with a level of service may include information identifying a type of network slice (e.g., a slice identifier) associated with the level of service. Also ¶0010-¶0019; network slice configuration may be defined according to a fixed slice description associated with the UE, the application, and/or the service. In this way, the wireless telecommunication system may allocate different types of network slices (e.g., network slices providing different qualities or levels of service) based on the UE, the application, and/or the service. In some situations, users of an application may have subscribed to different levels of service (e.g., different amounts of bandwidth, different priorities, and/or the like). In this way, a network may perform automated user-based network slicing. User-based network slicing may enable the network to provide different levels of service to different users that are utilizing the same UE (e.g., at different times) to access an application and/or service provided by the network)
Caceres does not expressly teach and performing the test of the service on the external local network using the plurality of UE as configured by the cellular network test system, wherein the test causes the plurality of the UE to intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof when communicating with the service hosted by the external local network.
Wang teaches and performing the test of the service on the external local network using the plurality of UE as configured by the cellular network test system, wherein the test causes the plurality of the UE to intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof when communicating with the service hosted by the external local network (Figs. 11-12 & ¶0066-¶0077, ¶0105-¶0163; UE receives a test scenario via a DL SON message where the message 524 may also specify how the radio access network parameter 602 is to be configured for the test scenario 502 for a particular wireless connection or include other attributes of the test scenario 502 as described above with reference to FIG. 6 [intentionally introduce]. Further, the SON facilitator 332 directs a wireless network to undergo a testing scenario as an experimental round intended to gradually discover iterative network performance improvements using a guided scheme).
It would have been obvious to one of ordering skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the system of Caceres in order to test UE on a network. Utilizing such teachings increase reliability during the test scenario, the UE can be provisioned with two wireless connections. A first connection is unchanged by the test scenario for stability, and a second connection is used for testing (abstract).
Caceres in view of Wang does not expressly teach “wherein the test causes the plurality of the UE to intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof when communicating with the service hosted by the external local network”
Guichard teaches wherein the test causes the plurality of the UE to intentionally introduce a defined amount of latency, jitter, packet loss, or some combination thereof when communicating with the service hosted by the external local network (Fig. 3 & ¶0022-¶0029; operator applies latency or jitter to packet streams e.g., operator enters latency and jitter values into the user interface. ¶0033-¶0037; tool 10 described above with respect to FIG. 1 may also be referred to as a network testing system that includes a computer having a user interface and a real time clock, that is operable to select a packet transmitted within a network to be tested for the addition of latency and jitter based on an identifier within the packet and select a latency and jitter to be applied to the selected packet. The network interface, for example network interface card 22, is communicatively coupled to the computer and includes a first interface configured for communicative coupling to a first network end system, and a second interface configured for communicative coupling to a second network end system. The network interface is operable to receive a packet at the first interface, determine if the received packet is the selected packet, and forward the received packet to its destination via the second interface if the received packet is not the selected packet. However, if the received packet is the selected packet, the network interface is further operable to read the real time clock, compute a transmit time for the received packet based on the selected latency and jitter, and store and forward the received packet to its destination via the second interface when the real time clock reaches the computed transmit time. As described elsewhere herein, the user interface is operable to enter a virtual LAN identifier, a destination port, a latency value and a jitter value, and further operable to determine whether a packet identifier within a packet received at the first interface matches the virtual LAN identifier entered via the user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate teachings of Guichard into the system of Caceres- Wang in order to determine how much a system may tolerate jitter or frequency offset (¶0041-¶0044). Utilizing such teachings enable the administrator to modify the testing as needed to adjust the system accordingly. Id.
Claims 12-18 and 20 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
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 MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights