Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-17 and 19-22 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument (see remarks on ps. 8-12 filed on 1/22/2026) with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 17 as amended have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11 and 19-22 has been withdrawn. However, applicants’ argument with respect to claim 12 is moot in view of a new ground of rejection (Jeong et al.) which better addresses the claimed invention as amended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 19-22 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al. (CN 109451525 A), hereinafter “Dou” in view of Jeong et al. (US 20140254367) hereinafter “Jeong”.
Regarding claim 12, Dou discloses a congestion processing method, performed by a network side device, comprising:
sending congestion indication information to a terminal (see Dou [Translated, Page 25], “step 602, sending indication information to the terminal by the network device the indication information is used for indicating the first cell in the congestion state of the network … the embodiment is not limited.”) when the following conditions is met:
a duration in which a scheduled data packet of the terminal camps on a buffer of the network side device is greater than a first preset value (see Dou [Translated, Page 4], “… the second condition comprising at least one of the following conditions: … the terminal sending time of uplink data is higher than a fourth threshold value, … when the terminal satisfies said second condition, determining whether the first cell is in the congestion state of the network.”; also see Dou [Translated, page 25], “step 601, network equipment judges whether the load of the first cell exceeds a load threshold … It should be understood that predetermined duration can be set in the network device according to the practical need, also can be determined by the network device according to the preset strategy.”), wherein the congestion indication information is used to indicate that the first cell is congested (see Dou [Translated, Page 25], “step 602, sending indication information to the terminal by the network device the indication information is used for indicating the first cell in the congestion state of the network … the embodiment is not limited.”).
Although Dou clearly suggests that the congestion indication could be carried via signaling information such as Radio Resource Control (RRC) to the terminal (see Dou translated page 26), Dou does not explicitly teach [the congestion indication information sent by the network side device comprises: receiving Downlink Control Information (DCI) or a Media Access Control layer Control Element (MAC CE) by the network side device, wherein the DCI or the MAC CE carries the congestion indication information].
However, Jeong teaches receiving Downlink Control Information (DCI) or a Media Access Control layer Control Element (MAC CE) by the network side device, wherein the DCI or the MAC CE carries the congestion indication information (see Jeong ¶¶ [0025][0106]). It is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Jeong related to including congestion information via DCI or MAC CE with a motivation to minimize the need to send separate congestion indication information (see Jeong ¶[0108]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Dou and Joeng discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the sending congestion indication information to a terminal comprises: sending Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling to the terminal, wherein the RRC signaling carries the congestion indication information (see Dou [Translated, Page 26], “… the indication information can be carried the connection reject message (e.g., radio resource control connection reject message (radio resource control, RRC connection reject)). In addition, the indication information in the embodiments of the present application also can be carried in the signaling newly defined.”).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Dou and Joeng disclose the method according to claim 12, wherein the condition further comprises:
scheduling of another terminal by the network side device reduces a time-frequency domain resource scheduled for the current terminal; a transmission bandwidth that needs to be provided for a first cell is greater than a third preset value; or a quantity of users served by the first cell is greater than a second preset value (see Dou [Translated, Page 25], “step 601, network equipment judges whether the load of the first cell exceeds a load threshold, if so, executing step 602 … step 602, sending indication information to the terminal …”; Note: Claim recites multiple functionalities by using ”at least one of” in a selective way. Since the Examiner has shown the teaching of at least one functionality (i.e., a quantity of users served by the first cell is greater than a second preset value), the claim limitation(s) is/are still met which dependent on the claim. See also Jeong claim 19 “… a condition indicating that a congestion level included in the congestion status information received from the RAN node is greater than or equal to a reference value…”).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Dou and Joeng disclose the method according to claim 12, wherein after the seconding congestion indication information to a terminal, the method further comprises: receiving a measurement report corresponding to a congestion measurement event reported by the terminal; and sending first handover signaling to the terminal based on the measurement report, wherein the first handover signaling is used to instruct the terminal to hand over to a second cell (see Dou [Translated, Page 3], “In one possible design, the network device receiving the measurement report sent by the terminal, the measurement report is used for the network device to the terminal from the first cell to the second cell … the terminal can when receiving the indication information, in order to reduce the effect of network congestion, handover to the second cell …”).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings of Dou and Joeng disclose the method according to claim 15, wherein before the sending congestion indication information to a terminal, the method further comprises: configuring the congestion measurement event for the terminal (see Dou [Translated, Page 29], “… terminal when the received random access response comprises the indication information and storing the time information of the first cell is in the congestion state of the network. The related implementation specifically, the first cell in the network congestion state of time information and time information of implementation how to use the first cell in the congestion state of the network …” see also Jeong ¶ [0076] & ¶ [0091]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 20140254367 A1) – see at least ¶¶ [0052] [0106] – transmitting congestion status information via RRC signaling or using MAC CE.
Sun et al. (US 20190174349 A1) – se at least ¶ [0186] – [… receives the congestion status information, reported by the UE by using a media access control (Media Access Control, MAC) control element (Control Element, CE), RRC signaling…]
Johansson et al. (US 20170251394 A1) entitled: “Explicit Congestion Notification Marking of User Traffic”, see at least ¶ [0087] – where “radio network node is configured to transmit control information indicating traffic congestion in a MAC control message.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yemane Mesfin whose telephone number is (571)272-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights