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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typographical error in claims 1, 19, and 20.
The examiner has interpreted the claims to read:
“…at least in part on one or both of: (i) the obtained power saving rule and (ii) a current power state at the UE[[;]] and at the device connected to the UE…”.
Claims not specifically addressed are objected to based on their dependency to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Although Applicant’s specification provides numerous examples and descriptions of the power saving slice being used when the detected battery level meets or drops below a predetermined threshold power level (see for example Fig. 4, ref. S120). However, with respect to claims 3, 5, 8, and 18, Applicant’s specification fails to provide sufficient support (i.e., “an algorithm or steps/procedure”, see MPEP §2161.01, with respect to written description for computer-implemented functional claim limitations, as is the case here) for performing the functions related to the condition that is actually being claimed by claims 3, 5, 8, and 18 (see for example claim 3: “detecting that the current batter power level meets or exceeds [i.e., above] a predetermined threshold power level; and establishing the PDU session using the power saving slice as a result of the detection”).
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) based on their dependency to claims 3 5, or 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hui et al. (US 2023/0276337)(“Hui”).
As per claim 1, Hui teaches a method implemented in a user equipment, UE, (see Fig. 9) the method comprising:
obtaining a power saving rule (i.e., URSP rules or policy information that may be modified to take into consideration performance dimension criteria including, inter alia, power consumption, see ¶0011, ¶0059, and ¶0061-0066, read as a power saving rule), the power saving rule being based at least in part on power consumption metrics related to use of at least one application on at least one slice by one … of the UE … (see ¶0059 and ¶0066, i.e., reselecting at least one slice/PDU session for an application based on “a cause for reselecting a PDU session”, which is based on power metrics, see for example ¶0059: “…a UE may determine that it (e.g., the UE is transitioning from a wake state to a between a sleep state) and/or an application executed by the UE (e.g., an application is transitioning from an active interface state to a minimized state) is to switch from a high power mode to a low power mode…”. In other words, the URSP rule/policy is triggered when the UE determines that the application on an initial slice/PDU session requires less power, equivalent to a “power consumption metric”, and thus seeks to switch to a low power network slice);
determining that a power saving slice should be used for a first application of one or both of the at least one application (see ¶0059, “… thus a low power consumption slicing (e.g., using a lower bandwidth configuration, infrequent scheduling, longer connected mode discontinuous reception (cDRX) cycle, etc.) may be desired”) based at least in part on one or both of: (i) the obtained power saving rule … (see ¶0066 “using the RSDs augmented with performance dimension criteria, a URSP manager [In other words, augmented URSP rules/policy information related to power consumption, read as the power saving rule] may use information regarding a cause for reselecting a PDU session with respect to one or more application to analyze (e.g., reevaluate) a current PDU session associated with the one or more applications to determine … if a new PDU session is a better match in light of the cause for reselection.”);
and establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session using the power saving slice (see Fig. 5, ref. 510, also see ¶0066 “That is, the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session associated with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in the context of ¶0059, is impliedly the desired slice having low power consumption characteristics, or the power saving slice).
As per claim 14, Hui further teaches wherein the power saving rule at least one of: … is based further on at least one of a … a URSP pre-configured in the UE … (see Fig. 9, ref. 902).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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 of this title, 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 2, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in further in view of Su et al. (US 2016/0066276)(“Su”).
As per claim 2, Hui does not expressly teach wherein the current power state is based on at least one of:
one or both of a current battery power level at the UE and the device; and
whether the one or both of the UE and the device is currently being charged by an external power source.
Nevertheless, determining the need for power saving or switching states based at least on a current power state which is based on at least one of: a current battery power level at a UE was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Su Fig. 10A, and ¶0164).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Hui for determining the need to transition to a low power state based on at least a current battery power level at a UE. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to preserve the battery life of the UE.
As per claim 3, Hui further teaches establishing the PDU session using the power saving slice as a result of a detection to switch to a low-power mode (see Fig. 5, ref. 510, also see ¶0066 “That is, the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session associated with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in the context of ¶0059, is impliedly associated with desired slice having low power consumption characteristics, based on the detection of a “switch from a high power mode to a low power mode…”). Hui, however, does not expressly teach the detection to switch to a low-power mode comprising detecting that the current battery power level meets … a pre-determined threshold power level.
Nevertheless, in the same art of UE state switching, Su teaches transitioning a UE to a restricted/low power state based on a current battery power level meeting a pre-determined threshold power level (see for example, Su Fig. 10A, and ¶0164, i.e., “if the battery chemical charge is less than or equal to the battery chemical charge threshold”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Hui and Su in claim 2 applies equally well to claim 3.
As per claim 8, Hui does not teach, however, in the same art as noted above, Su further teaches obtaining the power saving rule comprises:
as a result of the detection that the current battery power level meets or exceeds a pre- determined threshold power level (see Fig. 10A, and ¶0164, i.e., “if the battery chemical charge is less than or equal to the battery chemical charge threshold”), obtaining the power saving rule that is associated to the pre-determined threshold power level that is met or exceeded (i.e., “switch from state 1002 to state 1004”, see Fig. 10A and ¶0164, read as a power saving rule on the UE).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Hui and Su in claim 2 applies equally well to claim 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0276352)(“Wang”).
As per claim 4, although Hui teaches establishing the PDU session using the selected power saving slice (see ¶0066, i.e., “the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session association with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in context of ¶0059, i.e., “low power consumption slicing is desired”, anticipates the fully matched S-NSSAI being association with the a low power consumption or power saving slice), Hui however, does not expressly teach: providing a user interface configured to allow a user of the UE to select the power saving slice; and receiving a user input via the user interface to select the power saving slice.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network slicing, Wang teaches a user interface at a UE that allows a user to choose a particular slice for an application (see Fig. 5 and ¶0048-0052, which corresponds to Fig. 5, and ¶0047-0051 of US provisional application 62/053065, with a filing date of July 17, 2020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Hui with the user interface taught by Wang, such that the user is allowed to select the power saving slice in Hui. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide greater user control over the selection of network slices in Hui.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui and Wang, and in further in view of Su.
As per claim 5, Hui in view of Wang does not expressly teach wherein the providing the user interface configured to allow the user to select the power saving slice is a result of detecting that the current battery power level meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold power level.
Nevertheless, in the same art of UE state switching, Su teaches transitioning a UE to a restricted/low power state based on a current battery power level meeting a pre-determined threshold power level (see for example, Su Fig. 10A, and ¶0164, i.e., “if the battery chemical charge is less than or equal to the battery chemical charge threshold”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Hui and Su in claim 2 applies equally well to combining Hui, Wang, and Su in claim 5.
Claims 6, 10, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0171639)(“Kim”).
As per claim 6, Hui further teaches wherein establishing the PDU session using the power saving slice comprises:
determining to switch a first existing PDU session that is using a non-power saving slice (see ¶0066, e.g., “analyze (e.g., reevaluate) a current PDU session”, which in the context of ¶0059, where a low power consumption slicing is desired, implies the current PDU session is associated with a non-power saving slice); and
re-establishing a second PDU session using the power saving slice, the switched and re- established PDU sessions being associated with one … of the first application …(see ¶0066, i.e., “the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session association with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in context of ¶0059, i.e., “low power consumption slicing is desired”, anticipates the fully matched S-NSSAI being association with the a low power consumption or power saving slice).
As per claim 6, although Hui teaches switching to a new PDU session, Hui does not expressly teach determining to terminate a first existing PDU session that is using a non-power saving slice.
Nevertheless, as was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, typically when an application is no longer connected to a PDU session, the PDU session will be released or terminated (see for examples Kim, ¶0368, “when the service is terminated (or when the application execution is terminated), the PDU session is being released”).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to release or terminate the PDU session related to the non-power saving slice following the switch to the new PDU session. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to free up network resources associated with the old PDU session.
As per claim 10, Hui further teaches wherein the power saving slice is associated with a lower power consumption at one or both of the UE and the device connected to the UE, as compared to a power consumption associated with the non-power saving slice (see ¶0059, “… thus a low power consumption slicing (e.g., using a lower bandwidth configuration, infrequent scheduling, longer connected mode discontinuous reception (cDRX) cycle, etc.) may be desired”, wherein the low power consumption slice is impliedly relative to other network slices, that are associated with higher bandwidth configurations and/or cDRX cycles).
As per claim 11, Hui further teaches wherein the power saving slice is associated with the lower power consumption based at least in part on the power consumption metrics (see ¶0059, “e.g., using a lower bandwidth configuration, infrequent scheduling, longer connected mode discontinuous reception (cDRX) cycle, etc.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in further in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0064776) (“Wang ‘776”).
As per claim 7, Hui further teaches wherein establishing the PDU session using the power saving slice comprises:
determining to initiate a new PDU session for one or both of the first application … (see ¶0066, “determine … if a new PDU session is a better match in light of the cause for reselection.”); and
establishing the new PDU session using the power saving slice, the new PDU session being associated with the first application (see ¶0066, i.e., “the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session association with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in context of ¶0059, i.e., “low power consumption slicing is desired”, anticipates the fully matched S-NSSAI being association with the a low power consumption or power saving slice).
However, Hui does not expressly teach the new PDU session being associated with the first application and the device connected to the UE.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network slicing, Wang ‘776 teaches the selection and management of network slices, associated with PDU sessions/assignments (see ¶0030), for servicing applications running on devices connected to a host UE (i.e., “tethered devices”, see abstract, also see Fig. 1, ref. 104, and ¶0043, i.e., “the applications and/or services on the UE device 102, 104 requesting data”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Hui with the teachings of Wang ‘776 for utilizing the PDU session on behalf of applications running on connected UEs. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to extend the benefits of network slicing (e.g., resource customization based on requirements of different use cases, see Wang ‘776, ¶0026) to tethered UE devices/applications.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui and Su, in further in view of Kim.
As per claim 9, Hui further teaches wherein determining that the power saving slice should be used for the first application comprises:
identifying a non-power saving slice currently being used by a first existing PDU session for the first application that is associated to the power saving rule (see ¶0066, e.g., “analyze (e.g., reevaluate) a current PDU session”, which in the context of ¶0059, where a low power consumption slicing is desired, implies the current PDU session is associated with a non-power saving slice); and
switching the first application from the non-power saving slice to the power saving slice according to the power saving rule by switching the first existing PDU session that is using the non-power saving slice and re-establishing a second PDU session using the power saving slice (see ¶0066, i.e., “the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session association with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in context of ¶0059, i.e., “low power consumption slicing is desired”, anticipates the fully matched S-NSSAI being association with the a low power consumption or power saving slice).
As per claim 9, although Hui teaches switching the first existing PDU session, Hui does not expressly teach terminating the first existing PDU session that is using a non-power saving slice.
Nevertheless, as was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, typically when an application is no longer connected to a PDU session, the PDU session will be released or terminated (see for examples Kim, ¶0368, “when the service is terminated (or when the application execution is terminated), the PDU session is being released”).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to release or terminate the PDU session related to the non-power saving slice following the switch to the new PDU session. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to free up network resources associated with the old PDU session.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui and Su, in further view of Koller et al. (US 9,407,755)(“Koller”) and Kim.
As per claim 12, Hui further teaches wherein determining that the power saving slice should be used for the first application comprises:
identifying a non-power saving slice currently being used by a first existing PDU session for the first application that is associated to the power saving rule (see ¶0066, e.g., “analyze (e.g., reevaluate) a current PDU session”, which in the context of ¶0059, where a low power consumption slicing is desired, implies the current PDU session is associated with a non-power saving slice).
However, Hui does not further teach determining to terminate the first existing PDU session that is using the non-power saving slice and to forgo re-establishment of a second PDU session for the application to reduce power consumption at one or both of the UE and the device connected to the UE.
Nevertheless, first, it was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to terminate lower priority application during power conservation modes to preserve resources for higher-priority applications (see for example, Koller, col. 10, lines 29-31, i.e., “The client 118 may command the phone to enter a power conservation mode of operation. The client 118 may deactivate some applications on the mobile phone”. Also see col. 11, lines 37-40, i.e., “The user may define the power management scenarios to include a prioritization of active applications”).
Thus, based on the teachings of Koller, in the situation where the first application is a low-priority application, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to terminate the first application and thus forgo re-establishment of a second PDU session for the application to reduce power consumption at one or both of the UE and the device connected to the UE. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prioritize one or more other running applications on the UE when operating in the low-power or power conservation mode.
Secondly, even though the combination does not expressly teach determining to terminate the existing PDU session for the first application, as was also well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, typically when an application connected to a PDU session is deactivated/terminated, the corresponding PDU session for the application will also be released (see for examples Kim, ¶0368, “when the service is terminated (or when the application execution is terminated), the PDU session is being released”).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to release or terminate the PDU session that is using the non-power saving slice following termination of a corresponding low-priority application. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to free up network resources associated with the terminated application.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui and Su, in further view of Velev et al. (US 2023/0164881)(“Velev”), Koller, and Kim.
As per claim 13, Hui further teaches wherein determining that the power saving slice should be used for the first application comprises:
identifying a non-power saving slice currently being used by a first existing PDU session for the first application that is associated to the power saving rule (see ¶0066, e.g., “analyze (e.g., reevaluate) a current PDU session”, which in the context of ¶0059, where a low power consumption slicing is desired, implies the current PDU session is associated with a non-power saving slice).
Moreover, Hui anticipates a second existing PDU session for a second application (see ¶0060, “to associate the one or more applications to the PDU sessions”).
Hui, however, does not expressly teach the PDU session for the second application being associated with the non-power saving slice.
Nevertheless, it was well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to associate multiple PDU sessions by a UE to a common network slice (see for example, Velev ¶0060, i.e., “The different sessions can belong to different network slices or to the same network slice but having multiple PDU sessions”).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to associate the first and second existing PDU session with the same non-power saving slice. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support applications having common service level requirements.
However, Hui in view of Velev, does not expressly teach determining to terminate the second existing PDU session for the second application using the non-power saving slice to reduce power consumption at one or both of the UE and the device connected to the UE, while continuing the first existing PDU session for the first application using the non-power saving slice.
Nevertheless, first, it was also well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to terminate lower priority application during power conservation modes to preserve resources for higher-priority applications (see for example, Koller, col. 10, lines 29-31, i.e., “The client 118 may command the phone to enter a power conservation mode of operation. The client 118 may deactivate some applications on the mobile phone”. Also see col. 11, lines 37-40, i.e., “The user may define the power management scenarios to include a prioritization of active applications”).
Thus, based on the teachings of Koller, in the situation where a second application is designated as having a lower priority than the first application, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to terminate the second application using the non-power saving slice to reduce power consumption at the UE, while continuing the first existing PDU session for the first application using the non-power saving slice. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to preserve resources for the first application having a higher priority on the UE.
Secondly, even though the combination does not expressly teach determining to terminate the existing PDU session for the second application, as was also well known in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, typically when an application connected to a PDU session is deactivated/terminated, the corresponding PDU session for the application will also be released (see for examples Kim, ¶0368, “when the service is terminated (or when the application execution is terminated), the PDU session is being released”).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to release or terminate the PDU session for the second application using the non-power saving slice following termination of the second application. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to free up network resources associated with the terminated second application.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Abuelsaad et al. (US 2014/0095601)(“Abuelsaad”).
As per claim 15, Hui does not expressly teach wherein the power consumption metrics are related to historical use by one or both of the UE and/or and the device of the at least one application on the at least one slice.
Nevertheless, in the same art of power management, Abuelsaad teaches the ability to forecast a time to switch to a low battery power mode based on a historical power use associated with one or more applications (see ¶0085).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Abuelsaad to similarly make determinations as to when to switch applications from a high power to a low power mode in Hui based on using historical power usage of the application at the UE. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to anticipate when to switch from a high power to low power mode in Hui.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of de Lind van Wijngaarden et al. (US 2012/0210150)(“Wijngaarden”)
As per claim 16, Hui does not expressly teach continuously monitoring the power consumption metrics of one or both of the UE and the device; and
modifying the power saving rule based at least in part on a result of the monitoring.
Nevertheless, in the same art of power management, Wijngaarden teaches continuously monitoring power consumption metrics of at least a UE (see Fig. 1, ref. 110, also see Fig. 6, ref. 604, see ¶0133 i.e., “determine power usage parameters…”); and
modifying a power saving rule based at least in part on a result of the monitoring (i.e., “update thresholds and flags”, see Fig. 6, ref. 607).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Hui with the teachings of Wijngaarden for updating power related thresholds (read as a “power saving rule being based at least in part on power consumption metrics related to use of at least one application”) for determining when to switch from a high power to low power mode in Hui and thus triggering the search for a low consumption slice (see Hui, ¶0059). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to incorporate greater awareness of actual power needs/available capacity (see for example, ¶0014 of Wijngaarden) for making decisions as to when to switch the first application on the UE to a low consumption slice in Hui.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Wang ‘776, and in further view of Abuelsaad.
As per claim 17, Hui teaches the power consumption metrics are related to use of the at least one application on the at least one slice by the UE (see ¶0059, i.e., a “UE may determine that … an application executed by the UE … is to switch from a higher power mode to a low power mode, and thus a low power consumption slicing may be desired”.).
Hui however, does not expressly teach the power metric related to historical use of the application while running on the at least one slice.
Nevertheless, in the same art of power management, Abuelsaad teaches the ability to forecast a time to switch to a low battery power mode based on a historical power use by one or more applications (see ¶0085).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Abuelsaad to similarly make determinations as to when to switch applications from a high power to a low power mode in Hui based on using historical power usage of the application [while running on the at least one slice]. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to anticipate when to switch from a high power to low power mode in Hui.
Furthermore, Hui in view of Abuelsaad, does not expressly teach wherein the device is a Bluetooth device connected to the UE and the power consumptions metrics are related to historical use of the at least one application on the at least one slice by the Bluetooth device.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Wang ‘776 teaches Bluetooth devices connected to a UE that run at least one application on at least one slice (i.e., “tethered devices”, see abstract, also see Fig. 1, ref. 104, and ¶0043, i.e., “the applications and/or services on the UE device 102, 104 requesting data”, also see ¶0035, i.e., “the tethered connection 114 … can be established using … wireless technologies…. A wireless connection can be made using … Bluetooth”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the slicing resource reselection technology based on historical application use data, as taught by the combination of Hui and Abuelsaad, to applications running on Bluetooth connected devices as taught by Wang ‘776. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to achieve greater resource efficiency in response to power mode changes on Bluetooth connected devices running applications connected to at least one slice (see for example, Hui abstract: “…such as for more efficient operation in light of a change in power mode”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hui, Abuelsaad, and Wang ‘776, and in further view of Su.
As per claim 18, Hui teaches wherein … the determining that the power saving slice should be used for the first application comprises:
identifying a non-power saving slice currently being used by a first existing PDU session for the first application that is associated to the power saving rule (see ¶0066, e.g., “analyze (e.g., reevaluate) a current PDU session”, which in the context of ¶0059, where a low power consumption slicing is desired, implies the current PDU session is associated with a non-power saving slice); and one of:
switching the first application from using the non-power saving slice to using the power saving slice to reduce power consumption at the UE (see ¶0066, i.e., “the URSP manager may operate to change the PDU session association with one or more applications to a new PDU session of a RSD having a fully matched S-NSSAI”, which in context of ¶0059, i.e., “low power consumption slicing is desired”, anticipates the fully matched S-NSSAI being association with the a low power consumption or power saving slice).
As per claim 18, Hui does not expressly the determining that the power saving slice should be used as a result of the current battery power level of the UE meeting or exceeding a pre-determined threshold power level.
Nevertheless, in the same art of UE state switching, Su teaches transitioning a UE to a restricted/low power state based on a current battery power level meeting a pre-determined threshold power level (see for example, Su Fig. 10A, and ¶0164, i.e., “if the battery chemical charge is less than or equal to the battery chemical charge threshold”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Hui and Su in claim 2 applies equally well to claim 18.
Finally, the combination of Hui and Su, does not teach the claimed invention with respect to a Bluetooth connected device. In other words, Hui and Su do not expressly teach “wherein as a result of the current battery power level of the Bluetooth device meeting or exceeding a pre-determined threshold power level, the determining that the power saving slice should be used for the first application comprises:
… switching the first application from using the non-power saving slice to using the power saving slice to reduce power consumption at the Bluetooth device.”
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Wang ‘776 teaches Bluetooth devices connected to a UE that run at least one application on at least one slice (i.e., “tethered devices”, see abstract, also see Fig. 1, ref. 104, and ¶0043, i.e., “the applications and/or services on the UE device 102, 104 requesting data”, also see ¶0035, i.e., “the tethered connection 114 … can be established using … wireless technologies…. A wireless connection can be made using … Bluetooth”).
Similar to claim 17, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the slicing resource reselection technology as taught by the combination of Hui and Su, to Bluetooth connected devices as taught by Wang ‘776, wherein as a result of the current battery power level of the Bluetooth device meeting or exceeding a pre-determined threshold power level, the determining that the power saving slice should be used for the first application comprises: … switching the first application from using the non-power saving slice to using the power saving slice to reduce power consumption at the Bluetooth device. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to achieve greater resource efficiency in response to power mode changes on Bluetooth connected devices running applications connected to at least one slice (see for example, Hui abstract: “…such as for more efficient operation in light of a change in power mode”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Wing Chan can be reached on (571) 272-7493. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441