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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 7/7/2023.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki et al. (US 2022/0304024 A1); in view of Shatzkamer et al. (EP 2822247 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Maleki discloses a method of provisioning radio resources to a user
equipment (UE) by a cell site, comprising: receiving by a cell site an indication of a UE capability from a UE (the maximum number of MIMO layers that a wireless device (WD) is able to process are provided by the WD in its WD capability information, via RRC signaling to the network node; see paragraph [0112]); determining by the cell site a value of a network capability parameter to associate to the UE that is less than a maximum value of the network capability parameter that is compatible with the UE capability of the UE (the network node may determine a number of MIMO layers for the WD based at least in part on one or more parameters associated with the WD and the network node; the number of MIMO layers is lower than the WD capability (maximum MIMO layers the WD could support) and lower than the channel could support (therefore lower than maximum MIMO layers the network node could support); see paragraphs [0113] and [0138]), and providing radio resources to the UE by the cell site based on the determined value of the network capability parameter, wherein the network capability parameter defines one of a radio modulation level, a carrier aggregation (CA) state, and a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) state (the network node schedule and/or transmit a downlink (DL) channel to the WD based at least in part on the determined number of MIMO layers; no patentable weight is given to a radio modulation level and a carrier aggregation state due to a claim language one of; see paragraph [0140]).
Maleki discloses a network node determines a network capability parameter (number of MIMO layers) to a WD based on WD capability.
Maleki does not explicitly disclose the determination is based on a subscription service plan.
Shatzkamer discloses wherein the determining is based on a subscription service plan associated with the UE (the mobile network allows for higher bandwidth to be allocated to the UE device based upon a user service plan and/or policy associated with the UE; see paragraph 3 of page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki and Shatzkamer to determine network capability parameter value based on a service plan in order to satisfy user’s performance requirement (see paragraph 3 of page 17).
Regarding claims 5 and 20; Maleki discloses a network node determines a network capability parameter (number of MIMO layers) to a WD based on WD capability.
Maleki does not explicitly disclose determining a network capability parameter value based on application being executed by the UE.
Shatzkamer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving usage analytics from the UE, wherein the usage analytics provide a data usage estimate for an application and receiving an indication of an application being executed by the UE, and wherein determining the value of the network capability parameter is based further on the usage analytics (an mobile network receives a request for higher quality (QoS)/bandwidth from the UE, the request is associated with a client application executed on the UE; the mobile network allocates higher bandwidth based upon the client application associated with the UE; see paragraph 3 of page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki and Shatzkamer to determine network capability parameter value based on application being executed by the UE in order to satisfy user’s performance requirement (see paragraph 3 of page 17).
Regarding claim 6; Maleki discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE is a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable computer, a headset computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, or a tablet computer (the wireless device is a smart phone; see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claims 10; Maleki discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining by the cell site that the UE is opted in for assignment of radio resources to the UE that are less than the maximum radio resources consistent with the UE capability of the UE (a network node is configured to determine a number of MIMO layers for a WD, the determined number of MIMO layers being adjusted as compared to a maximum number of MIMO layers (WD capability) for the WD; see paragraph [0074] and [0112]).
Regarding claim 11; Maleki discloses a method of provisioning radio resources to a user equipment (UE) by a cell site, comprising: receiving by a cell site an indication of a UE capability from a UE (the maximum number of MIMO layers that a wireless device (WD) is able to process are provided by the WD in its WD capability information via RRC signaling e.g., to the network node; see paragraph [0112]); determining by the cell site that the UE is opted in for assignment of radio resources to the UE that are less than the maximum radio resources consistent with the UE capability of the UE (a network node is configured to determine a number of MIMO layers for a WD, the determined number of MIMO layers being adjusted as compared to a maximum number of MIMO layers (WD capability) for the WD; see paragraph [0074] and [0112]); determining by the cell site a value of a network capability parameter to associate to the UE that is less than a maximum value of the network capability parameter that is compatible with the UE capability of the UE (the network node may determine a number of MIMO layers for the WD based at least in part on one or more parameters associated with the WD and the network node; the number of MIMO layers is lower than the WD capability (maximum MIMO layers the WD could support) and lower than the channel could support (therefore lower than maximum MIMO layers the network node could support); see paragraphs [0113] and [0138]), and based on the application being used by the UE; and providing radio resources to the UE by the cell site based on the determined value of the network capability parameter (the network node schedule and/or transmit a downlink (DL) channel to the WD based at least in part on the determined number of MIMO layers; see paragraph [0140]).
Maleki discloses a network node determines a network capability parameter (number of MIMO layers) to a WD based on WD capability.
Maleki does not explicitly disclose the determination is based on a subscription service plan.
Shatzkamer discloses receiving by the cell site an indication from the UE of an application currently being used by the UE (a mobile network receives a request for higher quality (QoS) and bandwidth from the UE, the request is associated with a client application executed on the UE; see paragraph 3 of page 17); wherein the determining is based on a subscription service plan associated with the UE (the mobile network allows for higher bandwidth to be allocated to the UE device based upon a user service plan and/or policy associated with the UE; see paragraph 3 of page 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki and Shatzkamer to determine network capability parameter value based on a service plan in order to satisfy user’s performance requirement (see paragraph 3 of page 17).
Regarding claim 13; Maleki discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the indication of the UE capability identifies an antenna configuration of the UE (the number of Rx antennas and/or the maximum number of MIMO layers that a WD is able to process is provided in its WD capability information; see paragraph [0112]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki; in view of Shatzkamer; and in further view of Fang et al. (CN 109286602 A).
Regarding claim 2; the combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer discloses a base station determines a network capability parameter value based on UE capability information.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose reading network capability associated to the UE from a data store.
Fang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the value of the network capability parameter further comprising reading a network capability parameter value associated with the UE from a data store (read information of network capability associated with the user terminal; the information is in a data store; see last paragraph of page 12 and first paragraph of page 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Fang to read a network capability parameter value associated with a UE from a data store in order to avoid large amount of management overhead (see paragraph 10 of page 12 of Fang).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki; in view of Shatzkamer; and in further view of Abuelsaad et al. (US 2017/0064600 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 18; the combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer discloses a base station determines a network capability parameter value based on UE capability information.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose determining the capability value based on usage analysis.
Abuelsaad discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving usage analytics from the UE, wherein the usage analytics provide a data usage estimate per time slot, and wherein determining the value of the network capability parameter is based further on the usage analytics (based on the data plans, and the current velocities of data usage, the computer estimates amounts of data remaining in the billing cycle, and determines capability of the mobile device; see paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Abuelsaad to determine the capability value based on usage analysis to provide better bandwidth allocation (see paragraph [0007] of Abuelsaad).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki; in view of Shatzkamer; and in further view of Munoz et al. (US 2019/0297487 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 19; the combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer discloses a base station determines a network capability parameter value based on UE capability information.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose determining the capability value based on usage analysis.
Munoz discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving usage analytics from the UE, wherein the usage analytics provide a data usage estimate per different days of the week, and wherein determining the value of the network capability parameter is based further on the usage analytics (based on the amount of data usage trend a subscriber consumes on certain days of a week, the OCS may allocate resource (e.g. amount of data) quota to the subscriber; see paragraphs [0018] – [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Munoz to determine network capability value based on data analysis of certain days in a week in order to optimize network resources allocation (see paragraph [0012] of Munoz).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki; in view of Shatzkamer; and in further view of Huang (US 2021/0258132 A1).
Regarding claim 7; Maleki discloses a UE transmits UE capability information to a base station.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the UE capability includes chipset information.
Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the UE capability identifies at least one of a chipset installed in the UE (the UE capability may include particular type of hardware to identify the UE; see paragraph [0053]) or an antenna configuration of the UE (no patentable weight is given due to claim language or).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Huang to include chipset information in the UE capability to enable a base station to determine which option to select for the UE (see paragraph [0052] of Huang).
Regarding claim 12; Maleki discloses a UE transmits UE capability information to a base station.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the UE capability includes chipset information.
Huang discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the indication of the UE capability identifies a chipset installed in the UE (the UE capability may include particular type of hardware to identify the UE; see paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Huang to include chipset information in the UE capability to enable a base station to determine which option to select for the UE (see paragraph [0052] of Huang).
Claims 8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki; in view of Shatzkamer; and in further view of Soriaga et al. (US 2020/0154267 A1).
Regarding claim 8; Maleki discloses a WD transmits capability information to a network node.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the capability information identifies a QAM capability of a WD.
Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the UE capability identifies at least one of a maximum quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) constellation capability of the UE (the UE capability may include an indication of a modulation scheme (QAM) that the UE can support; see paragraph [0004]) or radio frequency bands supported by the UE (no patentable weight is given due to the claim language or).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Soriaga to include QAM in the WD capability information in order for a network node to better configure subsequent communication to the WD (see paragraph [0004] of Soriaga).
Regarding claim 14; Maleki discloses a WD transmits capability information to a network node.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the capability information identifies a QAM capability of a WD.
Soriaga discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the indication of the UE capability identifies a maximum quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) constellation capability of the UE (the UE capability may include an indication of a modulation scheme (QAM) that the UE can support; see paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Soriaga to include QAM in the WD capability information in order for a network node to better configure subsequent communication to the WD (see paragraph [0004] of Soriaga).
Regarding claim 15; Maleki discloses a WD transmits capability information to a network node.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the capability information identifies radio frequency bands supported by the WD.
Soriaga discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the indication of the UE capability identifies radio frequency bands supported by the UE (the UE capability information indicating one set of frequency resources of a RF spectrum band the base station will use for transmission; see paragraph [0222]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Soriaga to include radio frequency bands in the WD capability information in order for a network node to better configure subsequent communication to the WD (see paragraph [0004] of Soriaga).
Regarding claim 16; Maleki discloses a WD transmits capability information to a network node.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the capability information comprises a carrier aggregation mode of the operation.
Soriaga discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the radio resources comprise a carrier aggregation mode of operation (the UE capability includes carrier aggregation mode; see paragraphs [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Soriaga to comprise a carrier aggregation mode of the operation in the WD capability information in order for a network node to better configure subsequent communication to the WD (see paragraph [0004] of Soriaga).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki; in view of Shatzkamer; and in further view of Agarwal et al. (WO 2012/000550 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 17; Maleki discloses a base station provides radio resources to a UE.
The combination of Maleki and Shatzkamer does not explicitly disclose the radio resource include a MIMO mode of operation.
Agarwal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the radio resources comprise a carrier aggregation mode of operation or a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) mode of operation (radio resources comprises MIMO mode; see lines 3-6 of page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maleki, Shatzkamer and Agarwal to include MIMO mode of operation in the radio resources to perform radio network planning (see lines 1-3 of page1 of Agarwal).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to NING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/N.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415