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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment & remarks filed on 03/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surya Kumar Kovvali et al (US 20110116460 A1) in view of HUSSEIN Hassan et al (US 20200145175 A1).
For Claim 1, Kovvali discloses a device (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0032, lines 16-20, that While the Overlay Packet Scheduler 320 is depicted as a unit within the RAN-cache, it will be understood that the scheduler may be implemented as a stand-alone device)
comprising: a processor configured to:
receive, from one or more network components, key performance indicators (KPIs) and parameters (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0039, lines 5-6, that Referring to FIG. 7, in In step 710, the overlay scheduler receives parameters that relate to scheduling) that are associated with a User Equipment device (UE) (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0037, lines 1-10, that an illustrative set of parameters that the overlay scheduler may use …include 604 UE-Type, UE Capabilities, User Service Priority, QOS Parameters such as Maximum Bit Rate (MBR), Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), Service Class such as interactive, background class and 606 Cell Identifier or Service Area Identifier that UE is located);
select, based on the KPIs and the parameters, a scheduling strategy for data communications over a wireless link between the device and the UE (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0040, lines 7-11, that In step 730, the overlay scheduler determines the schedule for the next scheduling interval by, for example, determining the UEs whose packets will be transmitted, and determining the packet and application flows for the next scheduling interval); apply the selected scheduling strategy to schedule data for transmission to the UE; and transmit the data to the UE based on the scheduling (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0040, lines 12-14, that In step 740, the overlay scheduler buffers received packets and transmits packets and/or packet bursts according to the determined schedule for the scheduling interval).
Kovvali fails to expressly disclose wherein selecting the scheduling strategy comprises: further configuring the processor to: assign, to the UE, a UE group Identifier (ID) based on the KPIs; or select the scheduling strategy by determining a UE category for the UE, by determining a level of cell load on the device, and by using the UE category and the determined level of cell load to identify the scheduling strategy.
However, Hassan, in analogous art, discloses wherein selecting the scheduling strategy comprises: further configuring the processor to: assign, to the UE, a UE group Identifier (ID) based on the KPIs (Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0250, lines 1-4, that Step 66 may comprise an operation of generating clusters (clustering) from different UEs. When clustering is performed, groups of UEs are formed. A cluster may be generated by grouping UEs which share a particular property. Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0239, lines 1-4, that Here, a coupling (pairing, association) between UEs 51a-51c (cluster 51′) and UEs 52a-52c (cluster 52′) is performed, e.g., at step 14, e.g., on the basis of criteria such as the distance between the UEs, the mutual interference, the QoS, the QoE, and so on); or select the scheduling strategy by determining a UE category for the UE, by determining a level of cell load on the device, and by using the UE category and the determined level of cell load to identify the scheduling strategy (Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0229, lines 1-4, that the UEs of the cluster 31′ perform a UL in the slot 33a while, simultaneously, the UEs of the cluster 32′ perform a DL. Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0239, lines 1-4, that Here, a coupling (pairing, association) between UEs 51a-51c (cluster 51′) and UEs 52a-52c (cluster 52′) is performed, e.g., at step 14, e.g., on the basis of criteria such as the distance between the UEs, the mutual interference, the QoS, the QoE, and so on).
Hassan also teaches, in ¶ 0251, that In addition or alternative, the UEs in the same cluster/group may have share the UL/DL resource assignment or traffic requirement. In addition or alternative, the UEs in the same cluster/group may have compatibility (e.g., low interference with respect to each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Kovvali with the clustering taught in Hassan. The motivation is so that UEs in the same cluster may transmit and receive frames at the same frequency bands and/or in the same time slots [Hassan: ¶ 0250, lines 12-14].
For Claim 2, Kovvali discloses a device, wherein the scheduling strategy includes values, for a frequency band f and a scheduling transmission period, to be used by the UE and the device for communications (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0041, that The NodeB scheduler per prior-art may assign RF channels to UEs, based on, (1) UE Category, (2) CQI, which is a measure of the current RF conditions that the UE is experiencing, (3) UE Priority, (4) Service Type, and (5) Buffer occupancy which defines the packets waiting to be transmitted to the specific UE. At every Transmit Time Interval (TTI), the scheduler transmits packets to the selected UEs based on the scheduling policy).
For Claim 3, Kovvali discloses a device, wherein the parameters include: a price plan to which the UE is subscribed; a Fifth Generation Quality-of-Service Identifier (5QI); a Quality-of-Service Class Identifier (QCI); a Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI); a make and model of the UE; a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) associated with the UE; a Signal to Interference Plus Noise Ratio (SINR) associated with the UE; a Channel Quality Information (CQI) associated with the UE; an operating system installed on the UE; identifiers (Ds) for applications installed on the UE; network operator-defined UE categories; or standard UE categories (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0041, that The NodeB scheduler per prior-art may assign RF channels to UEs, based on, (1) UE Category, (2) CQI, which is a measure of the current RF conditions that the UE is experiencing, (3) UE Priority, (4) Service Type, and (5) Buffer occupancy which defines the packets waiting to be transmitted to the specific UE. At every Transmit Time Interval (TTI), the scheduler transmits packets to the selected UEs based on the scheduling policy).
For Claim 4, Kovvali discloses a device, wherein the KPIs include one or more of: a throughput of a cell associated with the device; a throughput of UEs in the cell; a physical resource block (PRB) utilization rate; or a transmission time interval (TTI) utilization rate (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0011, lines 9-12, that the scheduler uses the desired performance goals of maximum cell throughput and fairness at various network congestion levels, and controls egress burst rate while delivering packets to the RAN (Radio Access Network)).
For Claim 5, Kovvali discloses a device, wherein when the processor selects the scheduling strategy, the processor determines the level of cell load, among the multiple predefined levels of cell load, the processor is configured to: determine the cell load based on the KPIs (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0035, lines 14-22, that The overlay scheduler operates to analyze parameters of the network and each user and sends packet bursts per UE. The overlay scheduler may make scheduling decisions based on previously observed UE BW, content type, type of UE, cell or service area congestion level, and service class (such as Interactive Service class specified when UE's data-session is established). Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0036, scheduling a slow down of video streams when network congestion is high. Any parameter may be used to influence the adjustment of the schedule).
For Claim 6, Kovvali discloses a device, wherein when selecting the scheduling strategy, the processor is configured to: select the scheduling strategy based on the select the scheduling strategy based on the identified assigned UE group ID (Kovvali teaches, in ¶ 0041, lines 6-12, that At every Transmit Time Interval (TTI), the scheduler transmits packets to the selected UEs based on the scheduling policy. The Transport Block Size (TBS) defines the maximum number of bits per UE category based on a specific CQI. For example for category 10 UE, at CQI value of 25, the transport block size is 14411 bits which corresponds to a Maximum Bandwidth of 7.2 Mbps).
Kovvali fails to disclose selecting a scheduling strategy based on the identified assigned UE group ID.
However, Hassan, in analogous art, discloses selecting a scheduling strategy based on the identified assigned UE group ID (Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0229, lines 1-4, that the UEs of the cluster 31′ perform a UL in the slot 33a while, simultaneously, the UEs of the cluster 32′ perform a DL. Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0239, lines 1-4, that Here, a coupling (pairing, association) between UEs 51a-51c (cluster 51′) and UEs 52a-52c (cluster 52′) is performed, e.g., at step 14, e.g., on the basis of criteria such as the distance between the UEs, the mutual interference, the QoS, the QoE, and so on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Kovvali with the clustering taught in Hassan. The motivation is so that UEs in the same cluster may transmit and receive frames at the same frequency bands and/or in the same time slots [Hassan: ¶ 0250, lines 12-14].
For Claims 9-14, please refer to the rejection of Claims 1-6, above.
For Claims 17-19, please refer to the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
For Claim 20, please refer to the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surya Kumar Kovvali et al (US 20110116460 A1) in view of HUSSEIN Hassan et al (US 20200145175 A1) as applied to claims 1 or 9 above, and further in view of Kristen Sydney Young et al (US 10667179 B1).
For Claims 7, 15, Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0239, lines 1-4, that Here, a coupling (pairing, association) between UEs 51a-51c (cluster 51′) and UEs 52a-52c (cluster 52′) is performed, e.g., at step 14, e.g., on the basis of criteria such as the distance between the UEs, the mutual interference, the QoS, the QoE, and so on
Kovvali & Hassan fail to expressly disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of determining … based a traffic pattern of the UE and on an identifier for a network slice to which the UE is subscribed.
However, Young, in analogous art, discloses determining … based a traffic pattern of the UE and on an identifier for a network slice to which the UE is subscribed (Young teaches, in Col. 14, lines 1-7, that in data collection component 205 can obtain RAN data that can include data utilized by a base station of the RAN to provide one or more cells that cover geographic areas; data utilized by a base station of the RAN to perform scheduling and/or resource management for UEs covered by the base station; data indicating subscriber usage patterns in the RAN; data indicating mobility patterns in the RAN at a network slice level and/or a RAN level; data indicating temporal and/or geographic traffic patterns (e.g., at a network slice level and at a RAN level); data indicating user device mix, characteristics, etc.; and/or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Kovvali & Hassan with the NSI identifier taught in Young. The motivation is so that the network can preempt resources of an existing communication session with a lower priority in order to admit the communication session of the network slice [Young: Col. 2, lines 7-10].
For Claims 8, 16, Kovvali & Hassan disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the one or more network components include one or more of: a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF); an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF); a Unified Data Management (UDM); a Mobility Management Entity (MME); or a Home Subscriber Server.
However, Young, in analogous art, discloses that the one or more network components include one or more of: a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF); an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF); a Unified Data Management (UDM); a Mobility Management Entity (MME); or a Home Subscriber Server (Young teaches, in Col. 14, lines 1-7, that The functional elements can include, for example, a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) 402, a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) 404, a Network Exposure Function (NEF) 406, an Authentication Server Function (AUSF) 408, a Unified Data Management (UDM) component 410, a Policy Control Function (PCF) 412, an Application Function (AF) 414, an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) 416, a Session Management Function (SMF) 418, and a User Plane Function (UPF) 420).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Kovvali & Hassan with the NSI identifier taught in Young. The motivation is so that the network can preempt resources of an existing communication session with a lower priority in order to admit the communication session of the network slice [Young: Col. 2, lines 7-10].
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 02/10/2026, has also necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejection - 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the newly added feature: "when selecting the scheduling strategy comprises: the processor is further configured to assign, to the UE, a UE group Identifier (ID) based on the KPIs," as recited in amended claim 1 (see remarks, page 11).
The reason being Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0250, lines 1-4, that Step 66 may comprise an operation of generating clusters (clustering) from different UEs. When clustering is performed, groups of UEs are formed. A cluster may be generated by grouping UEs which share a particular property. Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0239, lines 1-4, that Here, a coupling (pairing, association) between UEs 51a-51c (cluster 51′) and UEs 52a-52c (cluster 52′) is performed, e.g., at step 14, e.g., on the basis of criteria such as the distance between the UEs, the mutual interference, the QoS, the QoE, and so on).
Thus, the Hassan reference teaches to assign, to the UE, a UE group Identifier (ID) based on the KPIs, wherein the group ID is mapped to, for instance, cluster 51’ or cluster 52’.
Additionally, Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0229, lines 1-4, that the UEs of the cluster 31′ perform a UL in the slot 33a while, simultaneously, the UEs of the cluster 32′ perform a DL. Hassan teaches, in ¶ 0239, lines 1-4, that Here, a coupling (pairing, association) between UEs 51a-51c (cluster 51′) and UEs 52a-52c (cluster 52′) is performed, e.g., at step 14, e.g., on the basis of criteria such as the distance between the UEs, the mutual interference, the QoS, the QoE, and so on. Examiner notes that this recitation by Hassan reads on the claimed using the UE category and the determined level of cell load to identify the scheduling strategy.
Moreover, Kovvali for its part, teaches, in ¶ 0011, lines 9-12, that the scheduler uses the desired performance goals of maximum cell throughput and fairness at various network congestion levels, and controls egress burst rate while delivering packets to the RAN (Radio Access Network). This also teaches using the determined level of cell load to identify the scheduling strategy.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that " Claim 1 requires determining a level of cell load on the device whose processor is configured to perform the claimed actions. In contrast, Kovvali describes an Overlay scheduler 505, which is a component external to the base stations, as illustrated in FIGS. 3-5 of Kovvali. The congestion levels referenced in Kovvali therefore pertain to conditions not on the device performing the actions recited in claim 1," as recited in amended claim 5 (see remarks, page 11).
First, it bears reminding that the “determining a level of cell load on the device” limitation is recited in the alternative [i.e., separated by an or] to the “assign, to the UE, a UE group Identifier (ID) based on the KPIs”. Therefore, only one of said limitations is needed to properly reject claim 1.
Second, a review of the spec as filed states “[0028]FIG. 3 depicts example functional components of a system 300 for improving cell throughput and latency, according to an implementation. As shown, system 300 may include access station 210 and components of core network 206. [0029]Interface 302 may include mechanisms for obtaining particular Key Performance Indicator (KPI) values that selector 304 may use to determine a load at a cell associated with access station 210.”
Therefore, Examiner construes a cell [consistent with Applicant’s specification] to refer to the geographic/service area in which network service is provided/available. This construction is equivalent [and is properly mapped] to Kovvali’s cell or service area congestion level, measured by the overlay scheduler, which overlay scheduler is part of the network/cell whose congestion level is measured.
Consequently, Examiner believes that any device that is a member of the cell/service area will experience Kovvali’s cell or service area congestion level as a level of cell load on the device.
For at least this reason, amended independent claim 1 is not yet patentable over the combination of art cited in the current office action.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are amended to recite features similar to amended claim 1. For similar reasons as articulated above for amended claim 1, amended independent claims 9 and 17 are also not yet patentable over the combination of art cited in the current office action.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-8, 10-116, and 18-20 are also not yet patentable for depending from rejected base claims, as well as for being rejected on their own merits.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Apostolopoulos (US 20200044927 A1) is pertinent to behavioral based device clustering. Specifically, by grouping devices according to behavior of the devices, upgrades, configurations and other management of the devices may be performed more efficiently to increase the efficiency of the network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412