DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s submission filed on May 19, 2025. Claims 1-17 are pending. As set forth in the Applicant’s response, claims 1, 9 and 17 are amended and the previous amendments to claims 5-7 and 13-15 are currently undone and reverted to their original form.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,448,416 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant states that the Ishii-Feuersanger-Jersenius combination at least fails to disclose, teach or suggest the newly added claim element, “wherein the network node initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner finds that a review of Feuersanger at paragraph [0181] discloses “[w]hether or not a semi-persistent resource allocation is utilized by the scheduler for radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling is up to the scheduler's decision--of course the scheduler will try to allocate radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling on a semi-persistent resource allocation, but this is not mandatory and may be influenced by other scheduling parameters, like channel quality, load, etc.”
The Examiner also notes that the Applicant in the previous January 10, 2025 response, maintained (see page 14) that “the cited portion of Feuersanger discloses that the decision of whether to use semi-persistent scheduling or not may be based on channel quality or load, but disclosure of whether to use semi-persistent scheduling is not disclosure of what periodicity to use for semi-persistent scheduling when semi-persistence scheduling is used.”
Thus, in this case it was noted that paragraph [0181] of Feuersanger discloses that the decision to use semi-persistent scheduling is based on channel quality or load. The Examiner notes that the scheduler is within Node B and thus part of the network node.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Ishii and Feuersanger disclose “wherein the network node initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: network node in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the Examiner determines that the specifically discloses that the network node has a structure corresponding to a base station. See col. 4, lines 27-28. See also col. 4, lines 26-38 which discloses other types of nodes as equivalent structures.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. US Patent Pub. 2010/0074230 in view of Feuersanger et al. US Patent Pub. 2012/0069805.
Regarding claim 1:
A method in a network node for controlling predictive scheduling in a wireless communication network between a base station applying predictive scheduling and a mobile station according to an uplink transmission scheme, wherein the network node initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load, the method comprising:
As set forth in paragraph [0009], Ishii discloses a base station (network node) selects a mobile station allowed to communicate using a shared channel and requests the selected mobile station via the uplink scheduling grant to communicate using the shared channels. The selected mobile station in turn transmits the shared channel based on the uplink scheduling grant. See also paragraph [0012]. As set forth in paragraph [0149], Ishii discloses that persistent scheduling is a scheduling scheme where radio resources are allocated at regular intervals and is applicable to transmission of packet data in services such as VoIP.
The Examiner determines that Ishii does not disclose the UE sending a scheduling request prior to the initial uplink scheduling grant and thus the Examiner determines that Ishii provides a predictive scheduling scheme since the UE is provided with pre-scheduled uplink grant. In addition, In paragraph [0097], Ishii discloses that having the UE transmit a scheduling request is not preferable since it can cause delay in services such as gaming and VoIP. Therefore, there is a clear suggestion that predictive scheduling is preferred. As set forth above, the scheduling in Ishii is ‘predictive’ since the transmission of VoIP packets is transmitted at periodic intervals and thus its scheduled transmissions can be predicted.
Nonetheless, to the extent it is considered that Ishii does not provide ‘predictive’ scheduling, the Examiner finds that Feuersanger discloses it was known that persistence scheduling is beneficial for services with a predictable traffic behavior such as for the transmission of Voice over IP packets. Thus, persistence scheduling is predictive scheduling since it can be based on predictable traffic behavior. See paragraph [0068].
The Examiner finds that the underlying ‘416 patent states:
“When the base station knows that a mobile has a periodic service or for some other reason can predict future data arrivals it can transmit a grant to the mobile without waiting for an SR. It is also possible to blindly transmit grants in order to speed up the scheduling. These scheduling methods are called predictive scheduling.”
Col. 2, lines 15-21
Thus, in this case, Feuersanger states that VoIP has predictable traffic behavior (paragraph [0068]) and that VoIP has a packet arrival time that is periodic which allows the eNode B to allocate uplink resource persistently every 20 ms, which could be then used for the transmission of Voice over IP packets.
The Examiner notes that the persistent scheduling of Feuersanger, like Ishii, is ‘predictive’ scheduling since as explained above, it scheduled based on the predictable traffic behavior. In addition, as further explained by Feuersanger, this scheduling can be deactivated based on whether the mobile terminal is generating data for transmission or not (see paragraph [0144] of Feuersanger). See also paragraph [0180] which discloses that the scheduling mode (e.g. the activation/deactivation of the semi-persistent scheduling) may take into account whether data was reported in the buffer status report.
Furthermore, with respect to the uplink transmission scheme, Feuersanger discloses that the uplink scheduling scheme allows for efficient QoS management and provides for a finer network-based QoS control. See paragraph [0055]. In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0181] other scheduling parameters such as channel quality and load can be used to allocate radio bearers carrying data for uplink transmissions. Specifically, Feuersanger states “[w]hether or not a semi-persistent resource allocation is utilized by the scheduler for radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling is up to the scheduler's decision--of course the scheduler will try to allocate radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling on a semi-persistent resource allocation, but this is not mandatory and may be influenced by other scheduling parameters, like channel quality, load, etc.”
Thus, the scheduler in the network node in Feuersanger initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load. See also paragraph [0070] (“The configuration of semi-persistent scheduling is done by RRC signaling. For example the periodicity, i.e. PS_PERIOD, of the persistent allocation is signaled within Radio resource Control (RRC) signaling”), [0099], (“the eNode B configures the semi-persistent uplink resources with a periodicity of 20 ms.”) and [0229] (“a semi-persistently resource allocation may be configured (e.g. the periodicity of the allocation)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ a system with predictive scheduling and where the predictive scheduling is initiated in view of channel quality or load. As explained by Ishii, waiting for the UE to transmit a scheduling request is not preferable since it can create delays for delay sensitive services. Ishii explains that buffer information is also sent to the base station which is used to determine whether the add the UE to a scheduling list. As explained by Feuersanger, semi-persistent scheduling are scheduled and may be used for VoIP. See paragraph [0067-0068]. Ishii is likewise directed to transmission involving VoIP and thus shares the same predictable traffic behavior (see paragraph [0068] of Feuersanger). See also paragraph [0181].
Therefore, using predictive scheduling would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion set forth by Ishii and the teachings disclosed by Feuersanger for using pre-scheduling for uplink resources. As also set forth above, both Ishii and Feuersanger provide an embodiment directed to VoIP which has periodic and predictable behavior. Feuersanger discloses that other parameters may influence uplink scheduling including channel quality and load. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the predictable nature of VoIP and would have further known that other network parameters, as taught by Feuersanger, can influence uplink transmissions when scheduling the transmission. See paragraph [0181] of Feuersanger.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods (i.e. the predictable behavior of VoIP as well as considering other parameters for the uplink transmission) and that these known methods would have led to providing an uplink transmission scheme for VoIP transmissions with minimal delay.
obtaining, from the mobile station, a select number of consecutive messages [comprising a buffer status report] indicating an empty mobile station buffer of the mobile station; and
Ishii discloses in paragraphs [0124-0125] that the processing unit may be configured to stop allocating uplink radio resources to the mobile station if control information indicating that the amount of user data in the data buffer of the mobile station is zero is received three times in succession from the mobile station.
determining to halt predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon receipt of the select number of consecutive messages from the mobile station indicating the empty mobile station buffer of the mobile station.
As stated in paragraphs [0124-0125] the processing unit is configured to exclude the mobile station from the scheduling for the uplink shared channel. Specifically, the processing unit is configured to refrain from transmitting the mobile station the uplink scheduling grant for requesting transmission of an uplink shared channel. As set forth therein, if the amount of user data in the data buffer is zero three times in succession, the scheduling will be stopped. See also paragraphs [0126-0127].
In addition, with further respect to halting predictive scheduling, the Examiner finds that Feuersanger discloses both the activation and deactivation of persistent scheduling. See paragraphs [0070-0074]. As explained in paragraph [0144] “mobile terminal can be further reactivated or even deactivated based on whether or not a respective semi-persistently scheduled radio bearer configured for the mobile terminal is active or not, i.e. whether its service is generating data for transmission or not.” See also paragraphs [0180] and [0228-0229]. As set forth in paragraph [0275], it ex explained that when the VoIP bearers become inactive then the base station decides to deactivate semi-persistent scheduling.
Regarding claim 8:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission scheme schedules a plurality of uplink transmission grants to be transmitted from the base station to the mobile station without having received a scheduling request from the mobile station requesting the uplink transmission grants.
See paragraph [0099]which discloses of receiving a plurality of uplink scheduling grants from the base station. The Examiner notes that Ishii does not disclose that the mobile station must request use of the uplink transmission, thus, Ishii discloses that receiving a plurality of uplink grants without having received a scheduling request.
In addition, as set forth above, Feuersanger is directed to a method of performing predictive scheduling of uplink resources and thus, with this method an uplink grant is transmitted without having received a scheduling request. As set forth above, Ishii discloses that it is preferable to not receive a scheduling request from the mobile station.
Regarding claim 9:
A network node for controlling predictive scheduling in a wireless communication network, the network node configured to initiate predictive scheduling for a mobile station according to an uplink transmission scheme, wherein the network node initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load, the network node comprising:
As set forth in paragraph [0009], Ishii discloses a base station (network node) selects a mobile station allowed to communicate using a shared channel and requests the selected mobile station via the uplink scheduling grant to communicate using the shared channels. The selected mobile station in turn transmits the shared channel based on the uplink scheduling grant. See also paragraph [0012]. As set forth in paragraph [0149], Ishii discloses that persistent scheduling is a scheduling scheme were radio resources are allocated at regular intervals and is applicable to transmission of packet data in services such as VoIP.
The Examiner determines that Ishii does not disclose the UE sending a scheduling request prior to the initial uplink scheduling grant and thus the Examiner determines that Ishii provides a predictive scheduling scheme since the UE is provided with pre-scheduled uplink grant. In addition, In paragraph [0097], Ishii discloses that having the UE transmit a scheduling request is not preferable since it can cause delay in services such as gaming and VoIP. Therefore, there is a clear suggestion that predictive scheduling is preferred. As set forth above, the scheduling in Ishii is ‘predictive’ since the transmission of VoIP packets is transmitted at periodic intervals and thus its scheduled transmissions can be predicted.
Nonetheless, to the extent it is considered that Ishii does not provide ‘predictive’ scheduling, the Examiner finds that Feuersanger discloses it was known that persistence scheduling is beneficial for services with a predictable traffic behavior such as for the transmission of Voice over IP packets. Thus, persistence scheduling is predictive scheduling since it can be based on predictable traffic behavior. See paragraph [0068].
The Examiner finds that the underlying ‘416 patent states:
“When the base station knows that a mobile has a periodic service or for some other reason can predict future data arrivals it can transmit a grant to the mobile without waiting for an SR. It is also possible to blindly transmit grants in order to speed up the scheduling. These scheduling methods are called predictive scheduling.”
Col. 2, lines 15-21
Thus, in this case, Feuersanger states that VoIP has predictable traffic behavior (paragraph [0068]) and that VoIP has a packet arrival time that is periodic which allows the eNode B to allocate uplink resource persistently every 20 ms, which could be then used for the transmission of Voice over IP packets.
The Examiner notes that the persistent scheduling of Feuersanger, like Ishii, is ‘predictive’ scheduling since as explained above, it scheduled based on the predictable traffic behavior. In addition, as further explained by Feuersanger, this scheduling can be deactivated based on whether the mobile terminal is generating data for transmission or not (see paragraph [0144] of Feuersanger). See also paragraph [0180] which discloses that the scheduling mode (e.g. the activation/deactivation of the semi-persistent scheduling) may take into account whether data was reported in the buffer status report.
Furthermore, with respect to the uplink transmission scheme, Feuersanger discloses that the uplink scheduling scheme allows for efficient QoS management and provides for a finer network-based QoS control. See paragraph [0055]. In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0181] other scheduling parameters such as channel quality and load can be used to allocate radio bearers carrying data for uplink transmissions. Specifically, Feuersanger states “[w]hether or not a semi-persistent resource allocation is utilized by the scheduler for radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling is up to the scheduler's decision--of course the scheduler will try to allocate radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling on a semi-persistent resource allocation, but this is not mandatory and may be influenced by other scheduling parameters, like channel quality, load, etc.”
Thus, the scheduler in the network node in Feuersanger initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load. See also paragraph [0070] (“The configuration of semi-persistent scheduling is done by RRC signaling. For example the periodicity, i.e. PS_PERIOD, of the persistent allocation is signaled within Radio resource Control (RRC) signaling”), [0099], (“the eNode B configures the semi-persistent uplink resources with a periodicity of 20 ms.”) and [0229] (“a semi-persistently resource allocation may be configured (e.g. the periodicity of the allocation)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ a system with predictive scheduling and where the predictive scheduling is initiated in view of channel quality or load. As explained by Ishii, waiting for the UE to transmit a scheduling request is not preferable since it can create delays for delay sensitive services. Ishii explains that buffer information is also sent to the base station which is used to determine whether the add the UE to a scheduling list. As explained by Feuersanger, semi-persistent scheduling are scheduled and may be used for VoIP. See paragraph [0067-0068]. Ishii is likewise directed to transmission involving VoIP and thus shares the same predictable traffic behavior (see paragraph [0068] of Feuersanger). See also paragraph [0181].
Therefore, using predictive scheduling would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion set forth by Ishii and the teachings disclosed by Feuersanger for using pre-scheduling for uplink resources. As also set forth above, both Ishii and Feuersanger provide an embodiment directed to VoIP which has periodic and predictable behavior. Feuersanger discloses that other parameters may influence uplink scheduling including channel quality and load. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the predictable nature of VoIP and would have further known that other network parameters, as taught by Feuersanger, can influence uplink transmissions when scheduling the transmission. See paragraph [0181] of Feuersanger.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods (i.e. the predictable behavior of VoIP as well as considering other parameters for the uplink transmission) and that these known methods would have led to providing an uplink transmission scheme for VoIP transmissions with minimal delay.
a processor; and a memory containing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the network node to perform operations to:
See Fig. 8 which discloses a call processing unit. See also paragraph [0165-0166] of Feuersanger which discloses a base station with a processor and a memory.
obtain, from the mobile station, a select number of consecutive messages [comprising a buffer status report] indicating an empty mobile station buffer of the mobile station; and
Ishii discloses in paragraphs [0124-0125] that the processing unit may be configured to stop allocating uplink radio resources to the mobile station if control information indicating that the amount of user data in the data buffer of the mobile station is zero is received three times in succession from the mobile station.
determine to halt predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon receipt of the select number of consecutive messages from the mobile station indicating the empty mobile station buffer of the mobile station.
As stated in paragraphs [0124-0125] the processing unit is configured to exclude the mobile station from the scheduling for the uplink shared channel. Specifically, the processing unit is configured to refrain from transmitting the mobile station the uplink scheduling grant for requesting transmission of an uplink shared channel. As set forth therein, if the amount of user data in the data buffer is zero three times in succession, the scheduling will be stopped. See also paragraphs [0126-0127].
In addition, with further respect to halting predictive scheduling, the Examiner finds that Feuersanger discloses both the activation and deactivation of persistent scheduling. See paragraphs [0070-0074]. As explained in paragraph [0144] “mobile terminal can be further reactivated or even deactivated based on whether or not a respective semi-persistently scheduled radio bearer configured for the mobile terminal is active or not, i.e. whether its service is generating data for transmission or not.” See also paragraphs [0180] and [0228-0229]. As set forth in paragraph [0275], it ex explained that when the VoIP bearers become inactive then the base station decides to deactivate semi-persistent scheduling.
Regarding claim 16:
The network node according to claim 9, wherein the uplink transmission scheme schedules a plurality of uplink transmission grants to be transmitted from the network node to the mobile station without having received a scheduling request from the mobile station requesting the uplink transmission grants.
See paragraph [0099]which discloses of receiving a plurality of uplink scheduling grants from the base station. The Examiner notes that Ishii does not disclose that the mobile station must request use of the uplink transmission, thus, Ishii discloses that receiving a plurality of uplink grants without having received a scheduling request.
Regarding claim 17:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer program code which, when executed by a processing device of a network node for controlling predictive scheduling of uplink traffic from a mobile station to a network node in a wireless communication network according to an uplink transmission scheme, wherein the network node initiates the predictive scheduling based on one or more of channel quality, priority, and traffic load, cause the network node to perform operations comprising:
As set forth in paragraph [0009], Ishii discloses a base station selects a mobile station allowed to communicate using a shared channel and requests the selected mobile station via the uplink scheduling grant to communicate using the shared channels. The selected mobile station in turn transmits the shared channel based on the uplink scheduling grant. See also paragraph [0012]. As set forth in paragraph [0149], Ishii discloses that persistent scheduling is a scheduling scheme were radio resources are allocated at regular intervals and is applicable to transmission of packet data in services such as VoIP. See also paragraph [0218] which discloses that the disclosed disagrees may be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination of them.
The Examiner determines that Ishii does not disclose the UE sending a scheduling request prior to the initial uplink scheduling grant and thus the Examiner determines that Ishii provides a predictive scheduling scheme since the UE is provided with pre-scheduled uplink grant. In addition, In paragraph [0097], Ishii discloses that having the UE transmit a scheduling request is not preferable since it can cause delay in services such as gaming and VoIP. Therefore, there is a clear suggestion that predictive scheduling is preferred. As set forth above, the scheduling in Ishii is ‘predictive’ since the transmission of VoIP packets is transmitted at periodic intervals and thus its scheduled transmissions can be predicted.
Nonetheless, to the extent it is considered that Ishii does not provide ‘predictive’ scheduling, the Examiner finds that Feuersanger discloses it was known that persistence scheduling is beneficial for services with a predictable traffic behavior such as for the transmission of Voice over IP packets. Thus, persistence scheduling is predictive scheduling since it can be based on predictable traffic behavior. See paragraph [0068].
The Examiner finds that the underlying ‘416 patent states:
“When the base station knows that a mobile has a periodic service or for some other reason can predict future data arrivals it can transmit a grant to the mobile without waiting for an SR. It is also possible to blindly transmit grants in order to speed up the scheduling. These scheduling methods are called predictive scheduling.”
Col. 2, lines 15-21
Thus, in this case, Feuersanger states that VoIP has predictable traffic behavior (paragraph [0068]) and that VoIP has a packet arrival time that is periodic which allows the eNode B to allocate uplink resource persistently every 20 ms, which could be then used for the transmission of Voice over IP packets.
The Examiner notes that the persistent scheduling of Feuersanger, like Ishii, is ‘predictive’ scheduling since as explained above, it scheduled based on the predictable traffic behavior. In addition, as further explained by Feuersanger, this scheduling can be deactivated based on whether the mobile terminal is generating data for transmission or not (see paragraph [0144] of Feuersanger). See also paragraph [0180] which discloses that the scheduling mode (e.g. the activation/deactivation of the semi-persistent scheduling) may take into account whether data was reported in the buffer status report.
Furthermore, with respect to the uplink transmission scheme, Feuersanger discloses that the uplink scheduling scheme allows for efficient QoS management and provides for a finer network-based QoS control. See paragraph [0055]. In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0181] other scheduling parameters such as channel quality and load can be used to allocate radio bearers carrying data for uplink transmissions. Specifically, Feuersanger states “[w]hether or not a semi-persistent resource allocation is utilized by the scheduler for radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling is up to the scheduler's decision--of course the scheduler will try to allocate radio bearers carrying data suitable for semi-persistent scheduling on a semi-persistent resource allocation, but this is not mandatory and may be influenced by other scheduling parameters, like channel quality, load, etc.” See also paragraph [0070] (“The configuration of semi-persistent scheduling is done by RRC signaling. For example the periodicity, i.e. PS_PERIOD, of the persistent allocation is signaled within Radio resource Control (RRC) signaling”), [0099], (“the eNode B configures the semi-persistent uplink resources with a periodicity of 20 ms.”) and [0229] (“a semi-persistently resource allocation may be configured (e.g. the periodicity of the allocation)”). See also paragraph [0145] which discloses that its methods are implemented in hardware and/or software.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ a system with predictive scheduling and where the predictive scheduling is initiated in view of channel quality or load. As explained by Ishii, waiting for the UE to transmit a scheduling request is not preferable since it can create delays for delay sensitive services. Ishii explains that buffer information is also sent to the base station which is used to determine whether the add the UE to a scheduling list. As explained by Feuersanger, semi-persistent scheduling are scheduled and may be used for VoIP. See paragraph [0067-0068]. Ishii is likewise directed to transmission involving VoIP and thus shares the same predictable traffic behavior (see paragraph [0068] of Feuersanger).
Therefore, using predictive scheduling would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art given the suggestion set forth by Ishii and the teachings disclosed by Feuersanger for using pre-scheduling for uplink resources. As also set forth above, both Ishii and Feuersanger provide an embodiment directed to VoIP which has periodic and predictable behavior. Feuersanger discloses that other parameters may influence uplink scheduling including channel quality and load. See paragraph [0181] of Feuersanger.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the predictable nature of VoIP and would have further known that other network parameters, as taught by Feuersanger, can influence uplink transmissions when scheduling the transmission. These factors would have led to providing an uplink transmission scheme based on for example, VoIP transmissions.
obtaining, from the mobile station, a select number of consecutive messages [comprising a buffer status report] indicating an empty mobile station buffer of the mobile station; and
Ishii discloses in paragraphs [0124-0125] that the processing unit may be configured to stop allocating uplink radio resources to the mobile station if control information indicating that the amount of user data in the data buffer of the mobile station is zero is received three times in succession from the mobile station.
determining to halt predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon obtaining the select number of consecutive messages from the mobile station indicating the empty mobile station buffer of the mobile station.
As stated in paragraphs [0124-0125] the processing unit is configured to exclude the mobile station from the scheduling for the uplink shared channel. Specifically, the processing unit is configured to refrain from transmitting the mobile station the uplink scheduling grant for requesting transmission of an uplink shared channel. As set forth therein, if the amount of user data in the data buffer is zero three times in succession, the scheduling will be stopped See also paragraphs [0126-0127].
In addition, with further respect to halting predictive scheduling, the Examiner finds that Feuersanger discloses both the activation and deactivation of persistent scheduling. See paragraphs [0070-0074]. As explained in paragraph [0144] “mobile terminal can be further reactivated or even deactivated based on whether or not a respective semi-persistently scheduled radio bearer configured for the mobile terminal is active or not, i.e. whether its service is generating data for transmission or not.” See also paragraphs [0180] and [0228-0229]. As set forth in paragraph [0275], it ex explained that when the VoIP bearers become inactive then the base station decides to deactivate semi-persistent scheduling.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. US Patent Pub. 20100074230 in view of Feuersanger and further in view of Lee et al. US Patent Pub. 2011/0243014.
Regarding claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a message from the mobile station, the message comprising data indicating an empty mobile station buffer; and determining to restart applying predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon obtaining the message.
Regarding claim 10:
The network node according to claim 9, wherein the processor is further operative to: obtain a message from the mobile station, the message comprising data indicating an empty mobile station buffer; and determine to restart applying predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon receipt of the message.
As set forth above, Ishii discloses of receiving a message from the mobile station which indicates an empty buffer. Ishii does not specifically disclose to determine to restart applying predictive scheduling upon receipt of the message.
Nonetheless, see paragraph [0046] of Lee which discloses that upon receipt of a zero BSR the UL scheduling includes the UE in the UL scheduling list because although the UL scheduler has received the zero BSR from the UE, there is still data to be transmitted in the buffer of the first UE.
Thus, Lee discloses obtaining a message from the UE (zero BSR message) and restarting the scheduling since the UE is added back to the UL scheduler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the to restart applying predictive scheduling for the mobile station so that the UE can transmit data that is still waiting in the buffer. As explained by Lee after a zero BSR is received by the base station, there can still be data to be transmitted. Thus, Lee discloses it was known to return the UE to the UL scheduler list and restart the pre-scheduling scheme. In addition, Ishii discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art would want the base station to continue the process since certain services are delay sensitive (paragraph [0092]) and by restarting the scheduling this will ensure that the data from the UE can be transmitted on a timely manner.
Regarding claim 3:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising, detecting that a time period t has elapsed, t being equal to a predicted packet Inter Arrival Time (IAT); determining to restart applying predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon lapse of the time period t.
Regarding claim 11:
The network node according to claim 9, wherein the processor is further operative to: detect that a time period t has elapsed, t being equal to a predicted packet Inter Arrival Time (IAT); and to restart applying predictive scheduling for the mobile station upon lapse of the time period t.
Ishii as set forth above, does not specifically disclose of restarting the predictive scheduling upon lapse of a time period.
Nonetheless, Lee is directed to a method for stopping the scheduling of uplinks in response to a zero buffer status. As set forth in paragraph [0078], Lee discloses that the UL scheduling activates a timer no_BSR_timer and when the timer elapses, the UL scheduler operates as if there were data of a BSR size. Lee discloses that the timer may be set for half of the packet delay budge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a time period has passed and to restart applying predictive scheduling. As explained by Lee after a zero BSR is received by the base station, there can still be data to be transmitted. Thus, Lee discloses it was known to return the UE to the UL scheduler list after a predetermined time period and restart the pre-scheduling scheme. In addition, Ishii discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art would want the base station to continue the process since certain services are delay sensitive (paragraph [0092]) and by restarting the scheduling this will ensure that the data from the UE can be transmitted on a timely manner.
Regarding claim 4:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the time period t is set to IAT minus M, where M is of a predetermined constant value or dependent on a value of IAT.
Regarding claim 12:
The network node according to claim 11, wherein the time period t is set to IAT minus M, where M is of a predetermined constant value or dependent on a value of IAT.
As set forth in paragraph [0078], Lee discloses a constant value that is related to the Packet Delay Budget for the time period, As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a time period has passed and to restart applying predictive scheduling. As explained by Lee after a zero BSR is received by the base station, there can still be data to be transmitted. Thus, Lee discloses it was known to return the UE to the UL scheduler list after a predetermined time period and restart the pre-scheduling scheme. In addition, Ishii discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art would want the base station to continue the process since certain services are delay sensitive (paragraph [0092]) and by restarting the scheduling this will ensure that the data from the UE can be transmitted on a timely manner.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al. US Patent Pub. 2010/0074230 in view of Feuersanger et al. US Patent Pub. 2012/0069805 and further in view of Jersenius et al. WO 2011/099906.
Regarding claim 5:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission scheme specifies a periodicity of uplink transmission and a data size of the uplink transmissions.
See paragraphs [0072] and [0122]. See also Figure 11-12 where the number of uplink is determined based on the amount of data in the data buffer.
In addition, as set forth above, Feuersanger discloses the periodicity of the persistent allocation is signaled within Radio resource Control (RRC) signaling and that channel quality and load can influence uplink scheduling. However, to the extent this is insufficient to show that the periodicity of Feuersanger is based on channel quality, priority or traffic load, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to base the periodicity on any of these factors.
For example, in the same field of endeavor, Jersenius is directed to a method for scheduling resources for uplink transmission. As explained in page 6, lines 20-24, Jersenius discloses that the radio base station assigns periodic resources to the control regions of the User Equipment and that this is done via control signal (e.g. RRC signaling). As stated in pages 6 , lines 30-page 7, line 2, Jersenius explains that the requirements on the periodicities may depend on factors such as speed and traffic characteristics commonly present in the cell. Jersenius explains that a high historic traffic load and a short periodicity results in a larger control region 3 of a cell. See also page 7, lines 13-18 and page 8, lines 1-29. See also page 9, lines 16-18 (“give periodicities according to expected load in the current time slot”). See also page 12, lines 14 and page 13, lines 21-34. In addition, Jersenius discloses in page 4, line 31-page 5, line 2 that different user equipment within the different cells may have different periodicity requirements due to differences in channel and traffic behavior. Thus Jersenius make it clear that periodicity of transmission can be based on channel and traffic behavior.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art base the periodicity on at least traffic load. As explained by Jersenius in cases of high traffic load, a short periodicity would result in a larger control region of a cell. The Examiner notes that Feuersanger, as explained above teaches that it was known for the periodicity to vary and thus basing the periodicity on at least traffic load would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art since Feuersanger already teachings of a mechanism for determining in addition to channel quality but traffic load. Thus, applying the teachings of Feuersanger and Jersenius to Ishii by basing the periodicity of the scheduling on at least traffic load would allow for a larger control region of a cell as well as using control channel resources in a more efficient and optimized manner.
Regarding claim 6:
The method according to claim 5, wherein the uplink transmission scheme is adapted based on channel quality metrics for the mobile station.
See paragraphs [0074-0075] which discloses that the uplink control channel is used to transmit a downlink channel quality indicator used for scheduling and adaptive module and coding of the physical downlink shared channel.
Regarding claim 7:
The method according to claim 5, wherein the uplink transmission scheme is adapted based on detected path loss for the mobile station.
See paragraph [0123] which discloses that the secluding and selection of transmission formats including schemes based on coding rates, data seizes, SIRs and/or path losses of sounding reference signals transmitted from the mobile stations in uplink.
Regarding claim 13:
The network node according to claim 9, wherein the processor is further operative to specify a periodicity of uplink transmission and a data size of the uplink transmissions.
See paragraphs [0072] and [0122]. See also Figure 11-12 where the number of uplink is determined based on the amount of data in the data buffer.
In addition, as set forth above, Feuersanger discloses the periodicity of the persistent allocation is signaled within Radio resource Control (RRC) signaling and that channel quality and load can influence uplink scheduling. However, to the extent this is insufficient to show that the periodicity of Feuersanger is based on channel quality, priority or traffic load, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to base the periodicity on any of these factors.
For example, in the same field of endeavor, Jersenius is directed to a method for scheduling resources for uplink transmission. As explained in page 6, lines 20-24, Jersenius discloses that the radio base station assigns periodic resources to the control regions of the User Equipment and that this is done via control signal (e.g. RRC signaling). As stated in pages 6 , lines 30-page 7, line 2, Jersenius explains that the requirements on the periodicities may depend on factors such as speed and traffic characteristics commonly present in the cell. Jersenius explains that a high historic traffic load and a short periodicity results in a larger control region 3 of a cell. See also page 7, lines 13-18 and page 8, lines 1-29. See also page 9, lines 16-18 (“give periodicities according to expected load in the current time slot”). See also page 12, lines 14 and page 13, lines 21-34. In addition, Jersenius discloses in page 4, line