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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 04/14/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14, the applicant argues that Ali and Sevilla do not disclose or suggest "determining that the wireless device is using a network slice", since Ali does not disclose or suggest the monitoring of a base station that is capable of slicing; and stated that network slicing is only achievable using a 5G SA base station, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because:
The recited limitation “network slice” is not specifically defined in the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art can interpret the “network slice” as a network unit which capable to provide wireless service to the UEs based on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Therefore, the base stations (or cells) in Ali will read the limitation “network slice”, since they provide wireless service to the UEs (Ali paragraph 37).
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend on claims 1, 8, and 14 respectively, therefore they are not allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240187883_A1_Ali in view of US_20250254589_A1_Sevilla.
Regarding claim 1, Ali discloses a method of managing LTE fallback for a wireless device (Ali figure 14), the method comprising: monitoring a temperature of the wireless device (Ali figure 14, elements 1404-1408, also see figure 15); determining that the wireless device is using a network slice (Ali figure 14, element 1402, also see figure 5); responsive to the temperature of the wireless device rising to meet a first temperature threshold, transmitting a notification from the wireless device indicating the temperature of the wireless device and indicating parameters for the network slice (Ali figure 14, element 1408, paragraph 116, “Otherwise, at step 1408, the UE sends the proposed heat reduction parameters to the BS”); and establishing an LTE session for the wireless device in accordance with a performance information for the wireless device based, at least in part, on the parameters for the network slice (Ali figure 14 elements 1410-1412, paragraph 116), but does not disclose the performance information is a performance profile.
Sevilla discloses the performance information is a performance profile (Sevilla paragraph 12, “…obtained from a subscriber profile… associated with LTE fallback”, also see paragraph 24).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sevilla’s performing LTE fallback in according to the subscriber profile in Ali’s system to provide appropriate service to the user. This method for improving the system of Ali was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Sevilla. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ali and Sevilla to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ali and Sevilla disclose the method of claim 1, and Ali further discloses the method further comprising: responsive to the temperature of the wireless device rising to meet a second temperature threshold higher than the first temperature threshold, migrating the wireless device to the LTE session (Ali figure 14 elements 1410-1412, paragraph 116, LTE fallback).
Regarding claim 8, Ali and Sevilla disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Sevilla further discloses a system, the system comprising: a Mobility Management Entity (MME) including at least one electronic processor configured to perform operations (Sevilla paragraph 24, MME).
Regarding claim 9, Ali and Sevilla disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Ali and Sevilla disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Ali and Sevilla disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240187883_A1_Ali in view of US_20250254589_A1_Sevilla and US_20250133455_A1_Pati.
Regarding claim 3, Ali and Sevilla disclose the method of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises disconnecting the wireless device from the network slice.
Pati discloses wherein the method further comprises disconnecting the wireless device from the network slice (Pati paragraph 84, “For example, the method comprises identifying that the temperature of the UE reaches the maximum temperature level, and in response to identifying that the temperature of the UE reaches the maximum temperature level, disconnecting the communication session and establish another communication session via the second RAT managed by a network.”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Pati’s disconnecting the communication session and establish another communication session via the second RAT managed by a network when the UE reaches the maximum temperature level in Ali and Sevilla’s system to prevent hardware damage, ensure device longevity, and maintain reliable service. This method for improving the system of Ali and Sevilla was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Pati. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ali, Sevilla and Pati to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Ali, Sevilla and Pati disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-5, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240187883_A1_Ali in view of US_20250254589_A1_Sevilla and US_20200288352_A1_Hu.
Regarding claim 4, Ali and Sevilla disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the performance profile comprises parameters for guaranteed bit rate.
Hu discloses wherein the performance profile comprises parameters for guaranteed bit rate (Hu paragraph 78, “…a profile in local policy can include information associated with one or more of enabling QoS, a disabling QoS, a QoS Class Identifier (QCI), an Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), a maximum bit rate (MBR), an aggregate maximum bit rate (AMBR) such as an Access Point Name-Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate and/or a User Equipment-Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate (UE-AMBR), APN-Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate (APN-AMBR), a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Hu’s a profile in local policy can include information associated with an Allocation and Retention Priority, a Guaranteed Bit Rate, and other service parameters in Ali and Sevilla’s system to ensure better customer experiences and efficient network management. This method for improving the system of Ali and Sevilla was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ali, Sevilla and Hu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Ali and Sevilla disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the performance profile comprises parameters for packet scheduling prioritization.
Hu discloses wherein the performance profile comprises parameters for packet scheduling prioritization (Hu paragraph 78, “…a profile in local policy can include information associated with one or more of enabling QoS, a disabling QoS, a QoS Class Identifier (QCI), an Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), a maximum bit rate (MBR), an aggregate maximum bit rate (AMBR) such as an Access Point Name-Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate and/or a User Equipment-Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate (UE-AMBR), APN-Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate (APN-AMBR), a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Hu’s a profile in local policy can include information associated with an Allocation and Retention Priority, a Guaranteed Bit Rate, and other service parameters in Ali and Sevilla’s system to ensure better customer experiences and efficient network management. This method for improving the system of Ali and Sevilla was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ali, Sevilla and Hu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Ali, Sevilla and Hu disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Ali, Sevilla and Hu disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Ali, Sevilla and Hu disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Ali, Sevilla and Hu disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240187883_A1_Ali in view of US_20250254589_A1_Sevilla and US_20250193768_A1_Karapantelakis.
Regarding claim 6, Ali and Sevilla disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the performance profile is selected from a list of preexisting candidate performance profiles.
Karapantelakis discloses wherein the performance profile is selected from a list of preexisting candidate performance profiles (Karapantelakis paragraph 10, “UE-determined access: UEs are also capable of determining to which RAT they should connect to e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G, implicitly where the UE is configured to access a specific RAT, via rule-based approach such as “5G Auto” where the UE determines based on measured latency/throughput which type of connection to use for example fallback to 4G if there is no need for 5G. In addition, Home Subscriber Server (HSS) or Unified Data Management (UDM) can be used to determine a preferred profile for a user's connection thus letting a 3GPP network determine which kind of connection a UE should use”, also see paragraphs 124, 142).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Karapantelakis’s determining a preferred profile for a user's connection during fallback in Ali and Sevilla’s system to ensure better customer experiences and efficient network management. This method for improving the system of Ali and Sevilla was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Karapantelakis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ali, Sevilla and Karapantelakis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Ali and Sevilla disclose the method of claim 6, but do not disclose wherein the performance profile is selected from the list of preexisting candidate performance profiles to approximate a quality of service provided by the network slice.
Karapantelakis discloses wherein the performance profile is selected from the list of preexisting candidate performance profiles to approximate a quality of service provided by the network slice (Karapantelakis paragraph 10, “UE-determined access: UEs are also capable of determining to which RAT they should connect to e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G, implicitly where the UE is configured to access a specific RAT, via rule-based approach such as “5G Auto” where the UE determines based on measured latency/throughput which type of connection to use for example fallback to 4G if there is no need for 5G. In addition, Home Subscriber Server (HSS) or Unified Data Management (UDM) can be used to determine a preferred profile for a user's connection thus letting a 3GPP network determine which kind of connection a UE should use”, also see paragraphs 124, 142).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Karapantelakis’s determining a preferred profile for a user's connection during fallback in Ali and Sevilla’s system to ensure better customer experiences and efficient network management. This method for improving the system of Ali and Sevilla was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Karapantelakis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ali, Sevilla and Karapantelakis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Ali, Sevilla and Karapantelakis disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Ali, Sevilla and Karapantelakis disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, Ali, Sevilla and Karapantelakis disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, Ali, Sevilla and Karapantelakis disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights