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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-16-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 Moon et al (US 2020/0351804) in view of Kahn et al (US 2022/0046567). Hereinafter referred to as Moon and Kahn.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, Moon discloses an application function (AF) entity in a wireless communication system, the AF entity comprising: a transceiver; and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to a network entity, traffic schedule information including at least one of a periodicity range, and a burst arrival time (BAT) range (see at least abstract and figures 4-5), receive, from the network entity, information about at least one of a first periodicity and a first BAT (see at least figures 4- 5 and abstract), and adjust scheduling of an application based on the information about at least one of the first periodicity and the first BAT, wherein the information about at least one of the first periodicity and the first BAT is determined based on at least one of the periodicity range and the BAT range (see at least abstract and figures 4- 5).
Moon discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the F entity is transmitting to a base station traffic scheduling and receiving from the base station first periodicity or BAT. However, Kahn, from the same field of endeavor, teaches an AF entity is capable of transmitting to a base station traffic scheduling and receiving from the base station first periodicity or BAT (see at least abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0035] and figure 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time to employ the teaching of Kahn, as indicated, into the communication method of Moon for the purpose of improving communication and network flexibility.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 12, and 17. Moon in view of Kahn discloses an AF entity wherein the traffic schedule information includes at least one of: a capability indication for scheduling adaptation, an initial periodicity, an initial BAT, or an uplink/downlink flow direction (see at least figures 4-5).
3, 8, 13, and 18. Moon in view of Kahn discloses an AF entity wherein the traffic schedule information is included in time sensitive communication assistance information (TSCAI) by a session management function (SMF) entity, and wherein the TSCAI is transmitted to a base station (see at least abstract and figures 4- 5).
Regarding claims 4, 9, 14 and 19. Moon in view of Kahn discloses an AF entity wherein the first period and the first BAT are determined by a base station, and wherein the first BAT is determined, in case that the traffic schedule information includes the capability indication for scheduling adaptation (see at least abstract and paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 15, and 20. Moon in view of Kahn discloses an AF entity wherein the first BAT is adjusted by a session management function (SMF) entity (see at least paragraph [0148]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476