DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-final action for application number 18/420,256 in response to an amendment filed on 04/22/2026; the original application was filed on 01/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2023/0319678 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 11,503,553 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, A device, [Figure 8, Ref # Base Station 808], comprising: one or more processors, [Figure 13, Ref # processor 1304] configured to:
receive an indication of a traffic descriptor, [The base station 808 may receive the communication with the traffic descriptor from the UE 802. The base station 808 may identify the traffic descriptor within the communication, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 175)], associated with an application running on a user equipment (UE), [Traffic descriptors can be defined either based on: 1) Service type of application (email, video, gaming etc.) which can point to a range of values for a set of QoS related attributes or 2) Traffic characteristics (just QoS attributes with no mapping to service/application types). Specific QoS attributes could have a relative priority level, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 42)],
wherein the traffic descriptor is associated with a class of applications, [Traffic categories can be defined based on type of service handled by an application. As an example, enterprise class applications could include traffic categories for email, browsing, chat, conferencing, voice, etc. Similarly gaming applications could include real-time gaming, interactive gaming and other games which could include extended reality (XR) type of traffic as well. Similarly, video streaming class of applications could also include live or buffered streaming, HD streaming, 4K streaming traffic, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 150)],
and allocate, by the network node, using a scheduling function, resources for the application based on an intra-user flow priority, [Traffic in each category can be categorized by application/service type which can point to a range of values for a set of QoS related attributes. These QoS related attributes can be as follows: 1) Priority level (scheduling priority among flows); 2) Packet delay budget (latency); 3) Packet error rate (congestion and reliability); 4) Burst window (max throughput per unit time); and 5) Averaging window (guaranteed flow bit rate over unit time), (Gupta et al., Paragraph 40)],
Gupta et al. fails to explicitly teach that different applications associated with the UE are allocated with different amounts of resources based on the intra-user flow priority,
Patel et al. teaches that if the network determines that the UE is authorized to use that network slice it can allocate it with one or more inner resource blocks if the priority of the network slice associated with the network slice identifier is a highest priority among priorities of network slices of other UEs (or at least higher than the priority of other network slices competing with the UE for the same network resources), See figure 3, Ref # 320 and 330, (Patel et al., Col. 10, Lines 20-45),
Patel et al. teaches that the intra-user flow priority is based at least in part of single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), [The UE can provide Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) parameters to the network to help the network select a RAN and a core network part of a slice instance for the UE. The identification of a Network Slice is done via the Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), (Patel et al., Col. 9, lines 1-20)],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Gupta et al. by including that different applications associated with the UE are allocated with different amounts of resources based on the intra-user flow priority, (Patel et al., Col. 10, Lines 20-45), in order to traffic priority, (Patel et al., Col. 2, lines 33-38).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the method wherein the intra-user flow priority is based on a Fifth Generation (5G) quality of service (QoS) identifier (5QI), [These performance characteristics include Resource type (GBR, non-GBR), Priority level, Packet delay budget, Packet error rate, Averaging window, Maximum data burst volume, etc. Standardized 5QI values are specified for services that are frequently used and the one-to-one mapping between standardized 5QI values and the 5G QoS performance characteristics, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 149)], and the (S-NSSAI), [The UE can provide Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) parameters to the network to help the network select a RAN and a core network part of a slice instance for the UE. The identification of a Network Slice is done via the Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), (Patel et al., Col. 9, lines 1-20)].
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the method wherein the application is associated with the class of applications, [Traffic categories can be defined based on type of service handled by an application. As an example, enterprise class applications could include traffic categories for email, browsing, chat, conferencing, voice, etc. Similarly gaming applications could include real-time gaming, interactive gaming and other games which could include extended reality (XR) type of traffic as well, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 150)], and each class is assigned to a separate logical flow using network slicing and a UE route selection policy (URSP), [the core network may identify the UE for provision of one or more URSP rules related to traffic descriptors for a parameter. The parameter may be a service type or a QoS attribute. For example, the parameter may be a service type in some instances and may be a QoS attribute in some instances, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 200)].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, the method further comprising a hierarchical traffic quality of service (QoS) based on a first level and a second level, the first level corresponds to an inter-user flow priority, and the second level corresponds to the intra-user flow priority, [Traffic descriptors can be defined either based on: 1) Service type of application (email, video, gaming etc.) which can point to a range of values for a set of QoS related attributes or 2) Traffic characteristics (just QoS attributes with no mapping to service/application types). Specific QoS attributes could have a relative priority level. As an example, there could be relative priority among the QoS attributes (e.g. low latency, high bandwidth slice with latency as higher priority). Specific QoS attributes could have a range of values. Priority in a slice can be given to a single or multiple QS attributes, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 42)].
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, the method wherein the resources for the application are selected from a set of resource blocks allocated for the UE based on an inter-user flow priority, [multiple BWPs can be configured for the UE 502 with different amount of frequency resources (for example, PRBs) to support data transmission under different traffic loading scenarios, (Zhang et al., Paragraph 187)].
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the method wherein the intra-user flow priority is triggered based on network measurements, and the network measurements are associated with a cell-level load, [A BWP containing a smaller number of PRBs can be used for data transmission with small traffic load while allowing power saving at the UE 502 and in some cases at the gNB 516. A BWP containing a larger number of PRBs can be used for scenarios with higher traffic load, (Zhang et al., Paragraph 187)].
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the method wherein the application is associated with low latency traffic, [Gaming may include traffic from one or more applications related to Gaming service, e.g., with low latency requirement, (Gupta et al., Paragraph 34)].
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 Shukri Taha whose telephone number is 571-270-1921. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHUKRI TAHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights