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 Argument
Applicant’s arguments see pages 6-7 filed on April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 15 Applicant argues that the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 does not teach or suggest “determining that one or more reduced capability devices are using a network slice”. Applicant further argued that Westerberg ‘733 disclosure of “low-cost and/or low-complexity” devices or FWA devices does not equate to a “reduced capability device”. Applicant assert that the term “reduced capability device” is a term of art referring specifically to “5G RedCap” or “NR-light” devices, which are distinct from FWA or standard Mobile Broadband (MBB) devices (Remarks page 6-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. During patent prosecution, claim terms are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. While Applicant argues that “reduced capability device” strictly means a “5G RedCap” or “MR-Light” device compatible to specific industry standards, the claims themselves do not recite “5G RedCap”. “NR-Light” or any specific 3GPP standard limitations.
Looking at Applicant’s specification as filed, paragraph [0013] defines the claimed “reduced capability devices” functionally, stating that they “have less capabilities than a typical eMBB devices and require less resources from a wireless network to adequately function”. The specification also provides “industrial sensor” as an example of reduce capability device.
Westerberg ‘733 explicitly discloses, wireless devices that operate on the partitioned network, including a Machine type wireless device(WD) WD or WD capable machine to machine communication (M2M), low-cost and low complex WD, a sensor equipped with WD…an Internet of Things(IoT) devices or Narrowband IoT devices[0049].
Under BRI , Westerberg ‘733 disclosure of Narrow Band IoT(NB-IoT) devices and wireless sensors reads on the claimed “reduced capability devices”. NB-IoT devices and network sensors inherently have fewer capabilities and require fewer network bandwidth resources than typical eMBB smartphones, which aligns with the functional definition and the exact examples (sensors) provided in Applicants own specification [0013].
Because the claims do not explicitly restrict the “reduced capability devices” to a specific 3GPP standard, the prior arts teaching of managing NB IoT and sensor devices on a shared network partition(network slice) reads on applicants argued claim limitation. Rejection of Claims 1-3, 9-11, 13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is therefore maintained.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 the Applicant argues these claims conditionally on that of their parent independent claims.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive and, therefore, the rejections of these claims are hereby maintained.
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 1-3, 9-11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg et al (US 2024/0291733 A1) in view of Young et al(US 2022/0124547 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Westerberg ‘733 teaches, a system ([0063]-[0064] and Figs. 2, 4-5, communication system 10), the system comprising: a network slice controller including at least one electronic processor configured to perform operations([0008], [0018], [0064] and Figs. 2, 4-5, communication system 10 comprising processor 38 which includes intent handler 24 for controlling partitioning of common radio resource (Fig. 2, slicing limit)), the operations comprising: determining that one or more reduced capability devices are using a network slice([0008], [0017], and Figs. 2, 4-5, fixed wireless access (FWA) device or an IoT device including wireless device (WD) capable of machine to machine communication (M2M), low-cost and/or low-complexity WD( reduced capability devices) sharing the common pool of frequency resources with the mobile broadband(MBB) devices(Fig. 2 slicing)); and
reducing a radio resource partitioning (RRP) ratio of the one or more reduced capability devices to non-reduced capability devices ([0008], [0092] and Figs. 2, 8, changing the RRP ratio of FWA to MBB devices by allocating more resources for MBB devices (e.g. increasing the allocation from 60% to 70%) which in turn decreases FWA to MBB ratio as MBB increases). Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, determining that a spectral efficiency of the network slice (common frequency resource) has dropped below a spectral efficiency threshold ([0018], [0091] and Figs. 2, 8, setting a target value for any measurable communication parameter in the communication system related to the performance/usage of the common resource pool (spectral efficiency) by the FWA and MBB devices, and detecting when a measured intent value is below the target values).
Westerberg ‘733 does not explicitly teach, a spectral efficiency of the network slice.
Young ‘547 teaches, a spectral efficiency of the network slice ([0051], [0052], estimating carrier spectral efficiency for a network slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Westerberg ‘733 by incorporating the teaching of Young ‘547, since such modification would enable to automat network slice admission control in an orchestration framework for a wireless communication network to efficiently meet SLAs, assure performance, and enable on-demand rapid service offering and deployment of network slices, as suggested by Young ‘547([0017]).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations, Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, monitoring a service level of the one or more reduced capability devices ([0092], [0092], [0096] and Figs. 2, 5, 8, intent handler monitors service level for both MBB and FWA devices); and
upon determining that the service level of the one or more reduced capability devices has dropped below a service level threshold, increasing the RRP ratio of the one or more reduced capability devices to non-reduced capability devices ([0092], [0092], [0096] and Figs. 2, 5, 8, intent handler monitors service level for both MBB and FWA devices and when a service level value is below a target value it provides new configuration value for the RRP ratio (e.g. 60% to 70%)).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations, Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, wherein the service level threshold is 5 Mbps([0009], [0088] and Fig. 2, the RRP ratio is configurable between 0% and 100% [0009] to correspond to throughput target value(intent metrics) such as the example provided “no less than 2 Mbps” [0088], thus Westerberg ‘733 target value for FWA devices could be configured to 5 Mbps by varying the RRP ratio).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations, Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, wherein reducing the RRP ratio of the one or more reduced capability devices to non-reduced capability devices comprises setting the RRP ratio to 5% reduced capability devices and 95% non-reduced capability devices( [0009], [0088] and Fig. 2, the RRP ratio is configurable between 0% and 100% [0009] to correspond to throughput target value(intent metrics) such as the example provided “no less than 2 Mbps” [0088]).
Regarding claim 15, Westerberg ‘733 teaches, a method of improving spectral efficiency([0008], [0091], [0092] and Figs. 2, 4-5, efficient usage of radio frequency resources disclosed), the method comprising: monitoring a service level of one or more reduced capability devices using a network slice([0092], [0092], [0096] and Figs. 2, 5, 8, intent handler monitors service level for FWA devices within the common pool of frequency resources (Fig. 2 slicing)); incrementally reducing a radio resource partitioning (RRP) ratio of the one or more reduced capability devices to non-reduced capability devices until the service level of the one or more reduced capability devices decreases to a service level threshold([0008],[0088], [0092] and Figs. 2, 8, changing the RRP ratio of FWA to MBB devices by allocating more resources for MBB devices (e.g. increasing the allocation from 60% to 70%) which in turn decreases FWA to MBB ratio as MBB increases, until throughput target value(intent metrics) reaches the 2 Mbps [0088]), Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, determining that a spectral efficiency of the network slice(common frequency resource) has dropped below a spectral efficiency threshold ([0018], [0091] and Figs. 2, 8, setting a target value for any measurable communication parameter in the communication system related to the performance/usage of the common resource pool (spectral efficiency) by the FWA and MBB devices, and detecting when a measured intent value is below the target values).
Westerberg ‘733 does not explicitly teach, a spectral efficiency of the network slice.
Young ‘547 teaches, a spectral efficiency of the network slice ([0051], [0052], estimating carrier spectral efficiency for a network slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Westerberg ‘733 by incorporating the teaching of Young ‘547, since such modification would enable to automat network slice admission control in an orchestration framework for a wireless communication network to efficiently meet SLAs, assure performance, and enable on-demand rapid service offering and deployment of network slices, as suggested by Young ‘547([0017]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations, Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, wherein an increment for decreasing the RRP ratio of the one or more reduced capability devices to non-reduced capability devices is by 5%( [0009], [0088] and Fig. 2, the RRP ratio is configurable between 0% and 100% [0009] to correspond to throughput target value(intent metrics) such as the example provided “no less than 2 Mbps” [0088], thus Westerberg ‘733 RRP could be reduced in 5% increment based on operators configuration).
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Murray et al (US 2023/0156583 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations, Westerberg ‘733 further teaches, the method further comprising: monitoring a service level of the one or more reduced capability devices([0092], [0092], [0096] and Figs. 2, 5, 8, intent handler monitors service level for both MBB and FWA devices).
Young ‘547, monitoring a usage level of the network slice([0019], [0051], estimating resource load and projected resource load of the network slice); and upon determining that the usage level of the network slice is above a saturation threshold([0054], [0055] comparing the total resource load to the total capacity to determine if the satisfy admission criteria)
and the service level of the one or more reduced capability devices is below a service level threshold([0017], [0055], determining whether the network can meet service level agreement and identifying if resources are not sufficient to meet the required performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Westerberg ‘733 by incorporating the teaching of Young ‘547, since such modification would enable to automat network slice admission control in an orchestration framework for a wireless communication network to efficiently meet SLAs, assure performance, and enable on-demand rapid service offering and deployment of network slices, as suggested by Young ‘547([0017]).
The combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 does not explicitly teach, offloading one or more of the reduced capability devices to a second network slice.
Murray ‘583 teaches, offloading one or more of the reduced capability devices to a second network slice([0089], [0202], [0209], the network offloading UEs including RedCap UEs from one network slice to another network slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547, by incorporating the teaching of Murray ‘583, since such modification would provide mechanisms to allow a UE to quickly and efficiently determine the slice(s) available in a cell, as suggested by Murray ‘583([0055]).
Claims 5-8, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lei et al(US 2023/0036057 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a downlink limited to a maximum of 2 MIMO layers.
Lei ‘057 teaches, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a downlink limited to a maximum of 2 MIMO layers ([0054], [0074], [0095] and Fig. 2, a NR RedCap UE may have only one or two reception antennas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547, by incorporating the teaching of Lei ‘057, since such modification would provide a user equipment (UE) that includes determining a configuration from stored configuration information, where the configuration specifies a subset of features that a new radio (NR) UE with reduced capabilities is to support, and communicating according to the configuration, as suggested by Lei ‘057( [0006]).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a maximum bandwidth of 20 MHz.
Lei ‘057 teaches, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a maximum bandwidth of 20 MHz ([0095], [0096], NR RedCap UE, wearables and surveillance cameras may support a maximum bandwidth (DL or UP) of 20 Mhz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547, by incorporating the teaching of Lei ‘057, since such modification would provide a user equipment (UE) that includes determining a configuration from stored configuration information, where the configuration specifies a subset of features that a new radio (NR) UE with reduced capabilities is to support, and communicating according to the configuration, as suggested by Lei ‘057( [0006]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a maximum downlink modulation order of 64 QAM.
Lei ’057 teaches, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a maximum downlink modulation order of 64 QAM([0091], [0096], NR RedCap UE may support a modulation order less than 64 QAM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547, by incorporating the teaching of Lei ‘057, since such modification would provide a user equipment (UE) that includes determining a configuration from stored configuration information, where the configuration specifies a subset of features that a new radio (NR) UE with reduced capabilities is to support, and communicating according to the configuration, as suggested by Lei ‘057( [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a maximum uplink modulation order of 64 QAM.
Lei ’057 teaches, wherein the one or more reduced capability devices have a maximum uplink modulation order of 64 QAM ([0091], [0096], NR RedCap UE may support a modulation order less than 64 QAM for uplink).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Westerberg ‘733 and Young ‘547, by incorporating the teaching of Lei ‘057, since such modification would provide a user equipment (UE) that includes determining a configuration from stored configuration information, where the configuration specifies a subset of features that a new radio (NR) UE with reduced capabilities is to support, and communicating according to the configuration, as suggested by Lei ‘057( [0006]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights