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 Arguments
The objection to applicant's specification made on 05/21/2026 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s correction filed 08/21/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments: First, Applicant argues on pg. 14 that “Frank does not disclose sending instructions that cause the base stations to utilize frequency ranges that do not overlap in frequency [because] Frank merely discloses a co-scheduler 230 that controls the first base station 210 to alter sub-carrier usage near the edge of the already separated frequency band.” Second, Applicant argues on pg. 14 that Frank does not disclose the new limitation “wherein the first frequency range comprises a first set of resource blocks and the second frequency range comprises a second set of resource blocks, the first set of resource blocks and the second set of resource blocks being non-overlapping subsets of a common set of resource blocks available to both the first base station and the second base station” because “Frank discloses the first base station 210 and the second base station 220 operate in separate frequency bands.” Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears Applicant is interpretating the claimed limitation in a narrower way than the Examiner. The claimed limitation only requires sending an instruction that instructs or causes the base station to use or utilize frequency ranges that are nonoverlapping in frequency. Frank’s co-scheduler controls the base station (which reads on instruction) to alter (which reads on causes the base station to use) sub-carrier frequencies (which reads on frequency ranges) that are nonoverlapping in frequency. The claimed limitation and Frank’s teaching are similar. In an attempt for clarification, Applicant amended the claim to recite wherein the first frequency range comprises a first set of resource blocks and the second frequency range comprises a second set of resource blocks, the first set of resource blocks and the second set of resource blocks being non-overlapping subsets of a common set of resource blocks available to both the first base station and the second base station.” However, Frank teaches this limitation broadly in [0032] where Frank explains the first base station and the second base station may communicate on FDD downlink 120 / FDD uplink band 110 and unpaired band 130 “(most notably but not necessarily exclusively).” This is also broadly disclosed in [0045] where UE 281 communicates on the paired spectrum uplink band 110 and the unpaired band 130, and UE 282 communicates on the unpaired spectrum 130 and the paired spectrum downlink band 120 and “the UEs, however, may be served by either (or both) of the base stations 210, 220.” Therefore, both base stations are capable of using paired spectrum uplink band 110, paired spectrum downlink band 120, and unpaired band 130. This interpretation is also in line with [0046] where “the base stations serving each frequency band 110, 120, 130.” While Frank broadly discloses the limitation, Wang et al. (US 2024/0224315 A1) explicitly teaches the limitation in Fig. 10 where BS 1 and BS 2 receive control messages comprising BWP ID 1 and ID 2 but the base stations are to use different BWPs for their corresponding UEs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 2012/0257519 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0224315 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Frank discloses A method comprising (claim 1), A computing device, comprising: a memory; and a processor device coupled to the memory and operable to (claim 11), and A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions operable to cause a processor device to (claim 17) (Fig. 10, [0120]: co-scheduler 1030 includes a proximal interference assessor 1033 and a time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037):
accessing, by a computing device, real-time metrics of a first user equipment (UE) being served by a first base station and a second UE being served by a second base station (Fig. 10, [0120]: The proximal interference assessor 1033 receives first UE (e.g., aggressor UE1) location information 1041 from the first eNB 1010 and receives second UE (e.g., victim UE2) location information 1043 from the second eNB 1020);
making a proximity determination, by the computing device based on the real-time metrics, that the first UE and the second UE are in proximity to one another ([0120]: Based on the location information 1041, 1043, the proximal interference assessor 1033 can determine whether the two UEs are proximal); and
based at least in part on the proximity determination, sending instructions to the first base station and the second base station that cause the first base station to utilize a first frequency range for communications with the first UE and the second base station to utilize a second frequency range for communications with the second UE (Figs. 1-2, [0037]: The region includes a first base station 210 for allocating frequency subcarriers and scheduling uplink and downlink communications with wireless user equipment operating in the paired frequency bands 110, 120 of FIG. 1. The system also includes a second base station 220 for allocating frequency subcarriers and scheduling uplink and downlink communications with wireless user equipment operating in the unpaired frequency band 130 of FIG. 1. [0038]: A co-scheduler 230 coordinates communications in power, time, and frequency between the two base stations 210, 220 and their served UEs. [0054]: the co-scheduler 230 controls the eNB 210 serving the aggressor UE 281 to direct the aggressor UE 281 to transmit on a second set of sub-carrier frequencies in a sub-frame 320 when the victim UE is receiving on an overlapping subframe 323 on the adjacent frequencies. This second set of sub-carriers excludes one or more sub-carriers near the edge of the frequency band, or in some other preferential frequency or time-frequency location. See Figs. 3-7, 12, and 14 show UE1 and UE2 are assigned non-overlapping frequency ranges in the y-axis representing frequency. Fig. 10, [0121]: The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 receives the time-frequency constraints from the proximal interference assessor 1033, which are based on the proximity information of the two UEs, and schedules UE1 wireless resources and UE2 wireless resources ... the time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 may reduce the sub-carriers assigned to one or both of the UEs during an overlapping time frame... These proximity constraints 1034 may be in addition to other, pre-existing scheduling constraints. The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 then sends the UE1 scheduling information 1045 to the UE1's serving base station 1010 and the UE2 scheduling information 1047 to the UE2's serving base station 1020), wherein the first frequency range comprises a first set of resource blocks and the second frequency range comprises a second set of resource blocks, the first set of resource blocks and the second set of resource blocks being non-overlapping subsets ([0041]: physical resource blocks (PRBs) in a high frequency portion of the unpaired band 130 and/or … PRBs in a low frequency portion of the paired band 110. [0045]: In a first scenario, the aggressor UE 281 transmits on the paired spectrum uplink band 110 while the victim UE 282 receives in the unpaired spectrum 130. In a second scenario, the aggressor UE 281 transmits on the unpaired band 130, and the transmissions may interfere with the victim UE 282 receiving on the paired spectrum downlink band 120…The UEs, however, may be served by either (or both) of the base stations 210, 220. Fig. 3, [0046]: the base stations serving each frequency band 110, 120, 130). Frank does not explicitly disclose, but Wang discloses the first set of resource blocks and the second set of resource blocks being non-overlapping subsets of a common set of resource blocks available to both the first base station and the second base station (Fig. 10, [0053]: the intelligent controller 502 sends control message for base station BS2 (Request ID 1) to base station BS2, and the intelligent controller 502 sends control message for base station BS1 (Request ID 2) to base station BS1. Both request IDs 1 and 2 include BWP ID 1 and 2 but BS2 is to use BWP ID 1 to communicate with UEs 1 and 2, and BS1 is to use BWP ID 2 to communicate with UEs 3 and 4). Wang also discloses in [0051 the controller performing steps 102-108 of Fig. 1 where [0035]-[0037] discloses that in step 102 position information of UEs are received, in step 104 whether interference exists between UEs is determined based on the position information, in step 106 a base station combination is generated including a first base station communicating with a first UE and a second base station communicating with a second UE where interference exists between both UEs, and in step 108 BWP resource allocation is performed by assigning the first UE a first BWP frequency band and the second UE a second BWP frequency band, where both BWP frequency bands are different. Wang further discloses in [0051]-[0055] the controller performs BWP resource allocation to the base stations after receiving the position information of the UEs so that the interference will not exist under the situation that the UEs 2 and 3 use different frequency band to communicate with corresponding base stations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the co-scheduler 230, as taught by Frank, to send control messages to the base stations based on determining that there is interference between UEs after receiving position information, where the control messages comprise the same BWPs but different BWPs are to be used by the base station for their corresponding UEs, as taught by Wang.
Doing so reduces the interference between the UEs (Wang: [0055]).
Regarding claim(s) 2, 12, 18, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 11, 17 as outlined above.
Frank discloses wherein accessing the real-time metrics of the first UE being served by the first base station and the second UE being served by the second base station comprises receiving, by the computing device from the first base station and the second base station, the real-time metrics (Fig. 10, [0120]: The proximal interference assessor 1033 receives first UE (e.g., aggressor UE1) location information 1041 from the first eNB 1010 and receives second UE (e.g., victim UE2) location information 1043 from the second eNB 1020).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 13, 19, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 11, 17 as outlined above.
Frank discloses wherein the real-time metrics include first location information that identifies a first location of the first UE and second location information that identifies a second location of the second UE and wherein making the proximity determination comprises (Fig. 10, [0120]: The proximal interference assessor 1033 receives first UE (e.g., aggressor UE1) location information 1041 from the first eNB 1010 and receives second UE (e.g., victim UE2) location information 1043 from the second eNB 1020):
determining that the first location of the first UE is within a predetermined distance from the second location of the second UE ([0120]: The UE location information can be generated within the UE itself (e.g., via stand-alone GPS) and transmitted 1091, 1093 to the serving eNB to relay to the co-scheduler 1030, can be generated with cooperation of the UE and the eNB (e.g., via assisted GPS…) … Based on the location information 1041, 1043, the proximal interference assessor 1033 can determine whether the two UEs are proximal. [0044]: UEs come close to each other (e.g., within 10 meters) … [0048]: two UEs 281, 282 are near each other (e.g., within 10 meters of each other…)).
Regarding claim(s) 5, 14, 20, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 11, 17 as outlined above.
Frank discloses further comprising:
making, by the computing device, a signal quality determination based on the real-time metrics that the first UE and the second UE each have non-preferred signal characteristic values, and wherein sending the instructions to the first base station and the second base station is based at least in part on the proximity determination and the signal quality determination (Fig. 10, [0120]: Based on the location information 1041, 1043, the proximal interference assessor 1033 can determine whether the two UEs are proximal and the circumstances under which their downlink and uplink assignments are likely to cause interference. [0121]: The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 receives the time-frequency constraints from the proximal interference assessor 1033, which are based on the proximity information of the two UEs, and schedules UE1 wireless resources and UE2 wireless resources in a manner that mitigates proximal UE interference. For example, the time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 may reduce the sub-carriers assigned to one or both of the UEs during an overlapping time frame, may not assign certain sub-frames to one or both of the UEs, and/or may provide dual power control instructions to one or both of the UEs during certain symbols, slots, or subframes. These proximity constraints 1034 may be in addition to other, pre-existing scheduling constraints. The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 then sends the UE1 scheduling information 1045 to the UE1's serving base station 1010 and the UE2 scheduling information 1047 to the UE2's serving base station 1020).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Frank discloses further comprising:
subsequent to sending the instructions, accessing, by the computing device, subsequent real-time metrics of the first UE being served by the first base station and the second UE being served by the second base station ([0128]: When the proximal interference assessor 1033 receives updated location information 1041, 1043);
making a subsequent proximity determination, by the computing device based on the subsequent real-time metrics, that the first UE and the second UE are in proximity to one another ([0128]: When the proximal interference assessor 1033 receives updated location information 1041, 1043. [0064]: the UEs may move freely with respect to each other and thus sometimes be far away from each other and sometimes be near to each other. When the two UEs 281, 282 are near each other, interference 415 is more likely result);
making a subsequent signal quality determination, by the computing device based on the subsequent real-time metrics, that the first UE and the second UE are each within a desired signal condition ([0066]: When the co-scheduler 230 receives information indicating that there is a potential victim UE 282 (e.g., that a UE 282 receiving in an adjacent band is proximal to the transmitting UE 281), the co-scheduler 230 controls the eNB 220 serving the aggressor UE 281 to allocate a second set of sub-carrier frequencies to the aggressor UE 281 on a subframe 420, 421 where the victim UE 282 is receiving on an overlapping subframe 423 on the adjacent band 120. [0069]: when a specific transmission subframe 417 of the aggressor UE 281 does not overlap in time with the victim UE's reception subframes 413, 423, 425, no change in subcarrier frequencies allocated to the aggressor UE is needed for that subframe 417. The co-scheduler is aware that the victim UE 282 is not assigned to receive during a subframe that overlaps with transmission sub-frame 417); and
in response to the subsequent signal quality determination, inhibiting sending instructions, to the first base station and the second base station, regarding frequency range utilization for communicating with the first UE and the second UE ([0069]: when a specific transmission subframe 417 of the aggressor UE 281 does not overlap in time with the victim UE's reception subframes 413, 423, 425, no change in subcarrier frequencies allocated to the aggressor UE is needed for that subframe 417. The co-scheduler is aware that the victim UE 282 is not assigned to receive during a subframe that overlaps with transmission sub-frame 417).
Regarding claim(s) 10, 16, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 11 as outlined above.
Frank discloses further comprising:
subsequent to sending the instructions, accessing, by the computing device, subsequent real-time metrics of the first UE being served by the first base station and the second UE being served by the second base station ([0128]: When the proximal interference assessor 1033 receives updated location information 1041, 1043);
making a subsequent proximity determination, by the computing device based on the subsequent real-time metrics, that the first UE and the second UE are not in proximity to one another ([0128]: When the proximal interference assessor 1033 receives updated location information 1041, 1043 indicating that the UEs are no longer proximal to each other. [0070]: When the aggressor UE 281 and the victim UE 282 are no longer proximal to each other); and
in response to the subsequent proximity determination, inhibiting sending instructions, to the first base station and the second base station, regarding frequency range utilization for communicating with the first UE and the second UE ([0128]: When the proximal interference assessor 1033 receives updated location information 1041, 1043 indicating that the UEs are no longer proximal to each other, it may lift the proximity constraints from the time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037. Alternately, the proximity constraints 1034 may be set in place for a predetermined amount of time and expire—unless updated location information 1041, 1043 indicates that the predetermined amount of time needs to be reset. [0070]: When the aggressor UE 281 and the victim UE 282 are no longer proximal to each other, the scheduler 230 may return to using any portion (or the full portion) of sub-carriers in the unpaired band 130 because adjacent band interference is less likely to occur when the UEs are distant to each other).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 2012/0257519 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0224315 A1) and Al-Shalash et al. (US 2014/0274064 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Frank discloses wherein the real-time metrics include (Fig. 10, [0120]: The proximal interference assessor 1033 receives first UE (e.g., aggressor UE1) location information 1041 from the first eNB 1010 and receives second UE (e.g., victim UE2) location information 1043 from the second eNB 1020. [0058]: The same metrics available for determining that UEs are proximal to each other (e.g., path loss, transmit power state, relative timing advance, angle of arrival (AoA) estimates, GPS location, and/or statistical location information) may also be used to determine that the UEs are no longer proximal to each other).
Frank does not disclose, but Al-Shalash discloses wherein the real-time metrics include serving cell signal strength, device location information, and neighbor cell signal strength ([0035]: measurement of certain triggering conditions. Examples of possible triggering conditions may include; speed or location of vehicle 101, signal strength from the serving base station, signal strength from a neighboring base station).
Therefore, 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 location information 1041, 1043, as taught by Frank, to include the location of vehicle, signal strength from the serving base station, and signal strength from the neighboring base station, as taught by Al-Shalash.
Doing so provides better announcement reports for make better intelligent decisions about resource reservations (Al-Shalash: [0035]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 2012/0257519 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0224315 A1) and Oktay et al. (US 2023/0308898 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Frank discloses further comprising:
determining, by the computing device based on the real-time metrics, that both the first UE and the second UE have non-preferred values that characterize a signal condition of the first UE and the second UE (Fig. 10, [0120]: Based on the location information 1041, 1043, the proximal interference assessor 1033 can determine whether the two UEs are proximal and the circumstances under which their downlink and uplink assignments are likely to cause interference. [0121]: The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 receives the time-frequency constraints from the proximal interference assessor 1033, which are based on the proximity information of the two UEs, and schedules UE1 wireless resources and UE2 wireless resources in a manner that mitigates proximal UE interference); and
wherein sending instructions to the first base station and the second base station that cause the first base station to utilize the first frequency range for communications with the first UE and the second base station to utilize the second frequency range for communications with the second UE is based on the proximity determination and on determining that both the first UE and the second UE have the non-preferred values (Figs. 1-2, [0037]: The region includes a first base station 210 for allocating frequency subcarriers and scheduling uplink and downlink communications with wireless user equipment operating in the paired frequency bands 110, 120 of FIG. 1. The system also includes a second base station 220 for allocating frequency subcarriers and scheduling uplink and downlink communications with wireless user equipment operating in the unpaired frequency band 130 of FIG. 1. [0038]: A co-scheduler 230 coordinates communications in power, time, and frequency between the two base stations 210, 220 and their served UEs. [0054]: the co-scheduler 230 controls the eNB 210 serving the aggressor UE 281 to direct the aggressor UE 281 to transmit on a second set of sub-carrier frequencies in a sub-frame 320 when the victim UE is receiving on an overlapping subframe 323 on the adjacent frequencies. Fig. 10, [0121]: The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 receives the time-frequency constraints from the proximal interference assessor 1033, which are based on the proximity information of the two UEs, and schedules UE1 wireless resources and UE2 wireless resources ... the time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 may reduce the sub-carriers assigned to one or both of the UEs during an overlapping time frame... These proximity constraints 1034 may be in addition to other, pre-existing scheduling constraints. The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 then sends the UE1 scheduling information 1045 to the UE1's serving base station 1010 and the UE2 scheduling information 1047 to the UE2's serving base station 1020).
Frank does not disclose, but Oktay discloses determining, by the computing device, that the first UE is associated with a first network slice and the second UE is associated with a second network slice (Fig. 1, [0033]: network slice unit 114 may create a first network slice intent for a first network slice 163 between first UE device 162 and TSN bridge 170, and network slice unit 114 may create a second network slice intent for a second network slice 165 between second UE device 164 and TSN bridge 170);
accessing a first network slice trigger condition of a plurality of network slice trigger conditions, the first network slice trigger condition corresponding to a situation where the first UE and the second UE are associated with different network slices (Fig. 1, [0033]: Service orchestrator 110 may receive the TSN configuration data from CNC 104. Service orchestrator 110 may include a network slice unit 114 that is configured to process the TSN configuration data and control the network system 100 to implement one or more TSN flows... For example, network slice unit 114 may create a first network slice intent for a first network slice 163 between first UE device 162 and TSN bridge 170, and network slice unit 114 may create a second network slice intent for a second network slice 165 between second UE device 164 and TSN bridge 170. First network slice 163 may correspond to a first one or more TSN flows indicated by the TSN configuration data. Second network slice 165 may correspond to a second one or more TSN flows indicated by the TSN configuration data. [0027]: the TSN configuration data may include information for configuring a first TSN flow between end station 152 and end station 154 via first UE device 162 and TSN bridge 170. Additionally, or alternatively, the TSN configuration data may include information for configuring a second TSN flow between end station 152 and end station 154 via second UE device 164 and TSN bridge 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the co-scheduler 230, as taught by Frank, to create a first and second network slice intent for first and second UEs based on TSN configuration data including information for configuring TSN flows between end stations and UEs, as taught by Oktay.
Doing so allows the service orchestrator 110 to output first and second network slice identification data to the first and second UEs so that both UEs are configured to communicate with TSN bridge 170 according to the first and second network slices (Oktay: [0048]-[0049]); and thus create a more time-efficient communication using TSN (Oktay: [0018]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 2012/0257519 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0224315 A1) and Guduru et al. (US 2024/0292375 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Frank in view of Wang discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Frank discloses further comprising:
determining, by the computing device, that the first UE has a non-preferred value that characterizes a signal condition of the first UE (Fig. 10, [0120]: Based on the location information 1041, 1043, the proximal interference assessor 1033 can determine whether the two UEs are proximal and the circumstances under which their downlink and uplink assignments are likely to cause interference. [0121]: The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 receives the time-frequency constraints from the proximal interference assessor 1033, which are based on the proximity information of the two UEs, and schedules UE1 wireless resources and UE2 wireless resources in a manner that mitigates proximal UE interference); and
wherein sending the instructions to the first base station and the second base station that cause the first base station to utilize the first frequency range for communications with the first UE and the second base station to utilize the second frequency range for communications with the second UE is based on the proximity determination and on determining that the first UE has the non-preferred value (Fig. 10, [0120]: Based on the location information 1041, 1043, the proximal interference assessor 1033 can determine whether the two UEs are proximal and the circumstances under which their downlink and uplink assignments are likely to cause interference. [0121]: The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 receives the time-frequency constraints from the proximal interference assessor 1033, which are based on the proximity information of the two UEs, and schedules UE1 wireless resources and UE2 wireless resources in a manner that mitigates proximal UE interference. For example, the time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 may reduce the sub-carriers assigned to one or both of the UEs during an overlapping time frame, may not assign certain sub-frames to one or both of the UEs, and/or may provide dual power control instructions to one or both of the UEs during certain symbols, slots, or subframes. These proximity constraints 1034 may be in addition to other, pre-existing scheduling constraints. The time-frequency-power resource allocator 1037 then sends the UE1 scheduling information 1045 to the UE1's serving base station 1010 and the UE2 scheduling information 1047 to the UE2's serving base station 1020).
Frank does not disclose, but Guduru discloses determining, by the computing device, that the first UE is associated with a first network slice that has a QOS requirement (Fig. 1, [0016]: The information received by RCS 101 … include granular information associated with particular UEs 103. For example, on a per-UE basis, RCS 101 may receive (at 102) information indicating usage via particular RATs or bands associated with a given UE 103. The usage information may include, for example, an amount of traffic, an amount of traffic that has been sent or received by a given UE 103 via a particular set of Quality of Service (“QoS”) parameters (e.g., a particular network slice…)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the co-scheduler 230, as taught by Frank, to receive granular information associated with a particular UE where the granular information includes usage information associated with a particular set of QoS parameters, such as particular network slice, as taught by Guduru.
Doing so provides for the dynamic determination of RAN configuration parameters, including radio channel configuration parameters, for different UEs based on various factors, such as attributes of respective UEs and/or of traffic sent and/or received by such UEs via the RAN (Guduru: [0011]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights