DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 17-18 and 21-22 are amended. Claims 15-16 are cancelled. Claims 23-24 are newly added. Rejections of claims 17-18 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn. Objections to the specification are withdrawn. Rejection to claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112b is moot. Claims 1-14, 17-18, and 21-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 13, 15, and 17, applicant argues that Avidor in view of Ali does not teach “determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in a beam of the plurality of beams.” Regarding Avidor, applicant argues that the “implicit determination” suggested by the Office Action is not a step disclosed or performed in Avidor; at most, it is an after-the fact inference that could theoretically be made by a reader, not an operation described by the reference itself (see pages 12-13). Regarding Ali, applicant argues the term ||wc,b|| appears only as a parameter in a theoretical fairness model for computing expected scheduling probabilities (see page 14-16). Applicant argues, in summary, Avidor’s PF metric is independent of beam load, and Ali’s recursive expression is a modeling assumption used to estimate average performance across beams, not a real-time scheduler input.
Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for 𝑝u (Ali (14)) into 𝑅u (Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting 𝑅u for 𝑅u(n) in 𝐽n (Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.
MPEP §2112(II) states in relevant part:
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
And MPEP §2112.02(I) states in relevant part:
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Ru (Ali (12)) is dependent on pu (Ali (14)) which is determined by ||wc,b||, the number of UEs served by beam b in cell c. Therefore, Ru is determined, in part, by ||wc,b||. Using Ali’s Ru in Jn (Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling decision is inherently based on ||wc,b||. Therefore, in combination, Avidor in view of Ali teaches “determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in a beam of the plurality of beams.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14, 17-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Avidor et al. (US 2007/0135139), Avidor hereinafter, in view of Ali et al. (System Model for Average Downlink SINR in 5G Multi-Beam Networks), Ali hereinafter.
Re. Claim 1, Avidor teaches a method of operating a network node configured to communicate with a plurality of communication devices in a communications network via a plurality of beams (Avidor, 0012: An exemplary embodiment of the present invention is directed to a method of determining a beam to be generated for a user. A user may be selected from a user population based on a parameter that is tracked for each user in the user population, and a beam preferred by that selected user may be determined. And 0056: The following notation and conditions are introduced: for the following algorithms, there is a finite collection of N pre-selected beams:
{
b
1
,
b
2
,
…
,
b
N
}
, and the expression
j
m
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
represents the index of the beam used in timeslot
m
for
m
=
0
,
1
,
…
,
n
-
1
where
n
is the current timeslot.), the method comprising:
determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in a beam of the plurality of beams (Avidor, 0063: The BS then generates (function 430) the preferred beam and uses the preferred beam to transmit a pilot signal (function 440). The BS then receives reports from all MSs in the MS population it serves (function 450). Each of these reports may include an
R
i
n
term, which as discussed above with respect to the PF algorithm, represents an estimate of the maximum data rate the responding mobile is capable of receiving during the n th timeslot. Each MS in the MS population computes
R
i
n
by measuring the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) of the pilot signal and then applies a desirable transformation, for example, such as Shannon's capacity formula
R
i
n
=
log
2
1
+
S
I
R
n
.
[In receiving reports based on the SIR of the pilot signal, the base station implicitly determines the number of MSs in the beam since only MSs which receive the pilot signal (i.e. served by the preferred beam) would send a report to the base station.]);
determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2). And 0064: The scheduler at the BS then determines (function 460), based on the reports, which MS will receive a packet in the current timeslot. This may be done using the techniques described above with regard to the PF scheduler, so as to select a 'winning MS'.),
the communication device being in the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.
[As noted above, since the determination is based on
R
i
n
the selected MS is necessarily in the beam.
T
i
n
is the running average throughput of MS
i
at timeslot
n
.]);
selecting the beam based on the scheduling priority of the communication device (Avidor, 0032: In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. 0061: For the selected MS, a preferred beam may be determined (function 430) according a preferred beam algorithm, to be described in further detail below. And 0067-0068: The preferred beam may be determined in accordance with the following ‘preferred beam algorithm’: The beam preferred by MS
i
at timeslot
n
is
b
j
if:
j
=
arg
max
k
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
N
}
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
R
i
n
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
(3) where
δ
l
,
k
=
1
,
k
=
l
;
l
,
k
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
0
,
k
≠
l
In expression (3),
j
(
m
)
is the index of the beam that was generated by the BS in timeslot
n
. For those
m
where
j
(
m
)
=
k
,
δ
=
1
. For example, if
k
=
3
, for all
m
's where the third beam was generated,
δ
=
1
, else
δ
=
0
. Expression (3) says: the preferred beam of MS
i
at timeslot
n
is the beam having the highest running average fed-back rates of mobile
i
.); and
responsive to selecting the beam, scheduling communication with the communication device via the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.).
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly disclose determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: The throughput of a UE is computed based on the Shannon-Hartley capacity expressed as
R
u
=
p
u
⋅
η
⋅
log
2
1
+
γ
u
(12) where
η
is the system bandwidth. … For this, a recursive definition is needed since the distribution of spare resources on the remaining beams may lead again to a limitation due to a crowded beam in the remaining set. Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14). Herein, it is important to note that scheduling probabilities of the UEs served by the same beam are same but those corresponding to UEs of different beams from same cell are not necessarily equal.
[
γ
u
is the SINR of a UE
u
,
|
|
⋅
|
|
is the cardinality operator which returns the number of elements in a set,
K
c
is the maximum number of simultaneously scheduled beams,
W
c
is the set of UEs in cell
c
,
w
c
,
b
is the set of UEs served by beam
b
in cell
c
, and
p
i
is the scheduling probability of UE
i
. Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 2, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 1.
Avidor further teaches wherein the scheduling priority of the communication device of the plurality of communication devices is a first scheduling priority (Avidor, 0060: The BS selects (function 420) a MS from the MS population based on a tracked parameter. And 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.
[The first selected MS (function 420) has a priority which corresponds to the first scheduling priority.]).
However, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in the beam of the plurality of beams is a first number, and wherein determining the first number comprises determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in each beam of the plurality of beams; and wherein determining the first scheduling priority comprises determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in the beam of the plurality of beams is a first number (Ali, III-C, pg. 4 quoted below.), and
wherein determining the first number comprises determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[In order to sort the beams with respect to their number of UEs, the number of UEs served by the beam is necessarily determined.]); and
wherein determining the first scheduling priority comprises determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: equation (14) quoted above.
[Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 3, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 2.
Avidor further teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining that the communication device has a greatest scheduling priority (Avidor, 0032: Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2). In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. Including the term
T
i
n
in the denominator means that MSs that have lately been "starved" (e.g., have not received a packet for a unusually large number of timeslots) are given relative priority in the scheduling process. And 0060: The BS selects (function 420) a MS from the MS population based on a tracked parameter. … In the instant example, the BS selects the MS that is the most 'starved' in terms of when the last packet was received.), and
wherein selecting the beam comprises selecting the beam based on determining that the communication device has the greatest scheduling priority (Avidor, 0061: For the selected MS, a preferred beam may be determined (function 430) according a preferred beam algorithm, to be described in further detail below. And 0067-0068: The beam preferred by MS
i
at timeslot
n
is
b
j
if:
j
=
arg
max
k
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
N
}
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
R
i
n
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
(3) where
δ
l
,
k
=
1
,
k
=
l
;
l
,
k
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
0
,
k
≠
l
In expression (3),
j
(
m
)
is the index of the beam that was generated by the BS in timeslot
n
.).
Re. Claim 4, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 2,
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining the first scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices in the beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining the first scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices in the beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The right-hand option in
m
i
n
⋅
,
⋅
produces a scheduling probability relative to the number of UEs in other beams.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 5, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 4,
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining that the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices in the beam is less than a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices in another beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining that the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices in the beam is less than a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices in another beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The determination of the scheduling probabilities used for computing
R
u
(Ali (12)) gives higher per MS/UE scheduling probabilities in beams with fewer MS/UEs resulting in a larger
R
u
for the MS/UEs served by those beams.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 6, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 1.
Avidor further teaches wherein the communication device is a first communication device (Avidor, 0064-0065: The scheduler at the BS then determines (function 460), based on the reports, which MS will receive a packet in the current timeslot. … The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2) on the beam selected in step 430.), the method further comprising:
determining that a second communication device in the beam has a second highest scheduling priority of scheduling priorities relative to scheduling priorities associated with communication devices in the beam (Avidor, 0065: The iteration is completed by updating the exclusion window and incrementing the timeslot counter for the next timeslot (function 490). The exclusion window is updated by pushing the index i(n), of the MS selected in function 420 into the exclusion window, thereby dropping the index i(n-L), which is the oldest index in the window, out of the exclusion window. Functions 420-490 may be repeated in subsequent timeslots.
[Functions 420-490 can be found in 0060-0065. The exclusion window is used to ensure MS
i
+
1
and not MS
i
is selected for the next iteration.]); and
responsive to scheduling the communication with the first communication device, scheduling communication with the second communication device via the beam based on the second communication device having the second highest scheduling priority of scheduling priorities relative to the scheduling priorities associated with communication devices in the beam (Avidor, 0065: The iteration is completed by updating the exclusion window and incrementing the timeslot counter for the next timeslot (function 490). The exclusion window is updated by pushing the index i(n), of the MS selected in function 420 into the exclusion window, thereby dropping the index i(n-L), which is the oldest index in the window, out of the exclusion window. Functions 420-490 may be repeated in subsequent timeslots.
[Functions 420-490 can be found in 0060-0065. The exclusion window is used to ensure MS
i
+
1
and not MS
i
is selected for the next iteration.]).
Yet, Avidor does not teach determining that a second communication device in the beam has a second highest scheduling priority of scheduling priorities relative to scheduling priorities associated with communication devices in the beam; and responsive to scheduling the communication with the first communication device, scheduling communication with the second communication device via the beam based on the second communication device having the second highest scheduling priority of scheduling priorities relative to the scheduling priorities associated with communication devices in the beam.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches determining that a second communication device in the beam has a second highest scheduling priority of scheduling priorities relative to scheduling priorities associated with communication devices in the beam (Ali, I, pg. 1: In [6], an average downlink SINR model is proposed based on User Equipment (UE) scheduling probabilities for analog beamforming systems where single beam is scheduled at a time.); and
responsive to scheduling the communication with the first communication device, scheduling communication with the second communication device via the beam based on the second communication device having the second highest scheduling priority of scheduling priorities relative to the scheduling priorities associated with communication devices in the beam (Ali, I, pg. 1: In [6], an average downlink SINR model is proposed based on User Equipment (UE) scheduling probabilities for analog beamforming systems where single beam is scheduled at a time.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 7, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 2.
Avidor further teaches wherein the scheduling priority for each communication device is an updated scheduling priority (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2) on the beam selected in step 430.
[Since the MS selected by the scheduler may or may not be the MS selected in step 420, it is implicit that the MSs in the beam have an updated scheduling priority.]), wherein determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices comprises:
determining an initial scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on a characteristic other than the number of communication devices that are in each beam (Avidor, 0032: Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2) In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. Including the term
T
i
n
in the denominator means that MSs that have lately been "starved" (e.g., have not received a packet for a unusually large number of timeslots) are given relative priority in the scheduling process.
[
T
i
n
is the running average throughput of MS
i
at timeslot
n
and
R
i
n
is transmission rate (Avidor, 0031,0032).]); and determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the initial scheduling priority and the number of communication devices that are in each beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.).
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the initial scheduling priority and the number of communication devices that are in each beam.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the initial scheduling priority and the number of communication devices that are in each beam (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 8, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 7
Avidor further teaches wherein the characteristic comprises at least one of: a signal-to-interference ratio; a quality of service requirement, a cell bandwidth; and a waiting period of each communication device of the plurality of communication devices (Avidor, 0032: In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. Including the term
T
i
n
in the denominator means that MSs that have lately been "starved" (e.g., have not received a packet for a unusually large number of timeslots) are given relative priority in the scheduling process.
[
T
i
n
is the running average throughput of MS
i
at timeslot
n
and
R
i
n
is transmission rate (Avidor, 0031,0032). The transmission rate is calculated as
R
i
n
=
log
2
1
+
S
I
R
n
, where SIR is the signal-to-interference ratio (Avidor, 0063).]).
Re. Claim 9, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 7.
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices comprises: determining a beam-user-based (“BUB”) scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices that are in each beam; and determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices by combining the initial scheduling priority and the BUB scheduling priority using an operation that results in an increased priority.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices comprises: determining a beam-user-based (“BUB”) scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices that are in each beam (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4 quoted below.); and
determining the updated scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices by combining the initial scheduling priority and the BUB scheduling priority using an operation that results in an increased priority (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The determination of the scheduling probabilities used for computing
R
u
(Ali (12)) gives higher per MS/UE scheduling probabilities in beams with fewer MS/UEs resulting in a larger
R
u
for the MS/UEs served by those beams. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 10, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 2.
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein determining the scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams comprises: determining a first ranking of a first beam of the plurality of beams, the first ranking indicating a number of communication devices in the first beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams; responsive to determining the first ranking, adjusting a scheduling priority associated with each communication device of the first beam by a first amount based on the first ranking; determining a second ranking of a second beam of the plurality of beams, the second ranking indicating a number of communication devices in the second beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams; responsive to determining the second ranking, determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the second beam based on the second ranking.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein determining the scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams comprises: determining a first ranking of a first beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[Sorting the beams with respect to the number of UEs served provides a first ranking of a first beam,
w
c
,
1
.]),
the first ranking indicating a number of communication devices in the first beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
[The sorting of the beams produces a ranking of the beams based on the number of UE/MSs served by the beam.]);
responsive to determining the first ranking, adjusting a scheduling priority associated with each communication device of the first beam by a first amount based on the first ranking (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The determined scheduling probabilities scale
R
u
(Ali (12)) which, in turn, adjusts scheduling priority of UE/MSs.]);
determining a second ranking of a second beam of the plurality of beams, the second ranking indicating a number of communication devices in the second beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The sorting of the beams produces a ranking of the beams based on the number of UE/MSs served by the beam.]); and
responsive to determining the second ranking, determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the second beam based on the second ranking (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The determined scheduling probabilities scale
R
u
(Ali (12)) which, in turn, adjusts scheduling priority of UE/MSs.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 11, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 1.
Avidor further teaches responsive to scheduling the communication with the communication device via the beam, communicating with the communication device via the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.).
Re. Claim 12, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 11.
Avidor further teaches responsive to communicating with the communication device via the beam, updating the scheduling priority of the communication device based on an updated number of communication devices in the beam relative to an updated number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Avidor, 0065: The iteration is completed by updating the exclusion window and incrementing the timeslot counter for the next timeslot (function 490). The exclusion window is updated by pushing the index
i
n
, of the MS selected in function 420 into the exclusion window, thereby dropping the index
i
n
-
L
, which is the oldest index in the window, out of the exclusion window. Functions 420-490 may be repeated in subsequent timeslots.
[Functions 420-490 can be found in 0060-0065. The exclusion window is used to ensure MS
i
+
1
and not MS
i
is selected for the next iteration. By pushing the index
i
n
into the exclusion window, the scheduling priority of the device is effectively updated.]).
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach responsive to communicating with the communication device via the beam, updating the scheduling priority of the communication device based on an updated number of communication devices in the beam relative to an updated number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches responsive to communicating with the communication device via the beam, updating the scheduling priority of the communication device based on an updated number of communication devices in the beam relative to an updated number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The determined scheduling probabilities scale
R
u
(Ali (12)) which, in turn, adjusts scheduling priority of UE/MSs. In Avidor 0065 quoted above, the pushing of
i
n
into the exclusion window effectively removes MS
i
from the beam before the next iteration of the scheduling operations which changes the values of
W
c
and
w
c
,
b
for calculating the scheduling probabilities and the scheduling priorities.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 13, Avidor teaches a network node configured to communicate with a plurality of communication devices in a communications network (Avidor, 0025: The term base station (also known as a Node-B) describes equipment that provides data connectivity between a network and one or more mobile stations.)
via a plurality of beams (Avidor, 0056: The following notation and conditions are introduced: for the following algorithms, there is a finite collection of N pre-selected beams:
{
b
1
,
b
2
,
…
,
b
N
}
, and the expression
j
m
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
represents the index of the beam used in timeslot
m
for
m
=
0
,
1
,
…
,
n
-
1
where
n
is the current timeslot.), the network node comprising:
processing circuitry (Avidor, 0057: The functions in FIG. 4 may be implemented by hardware or software, such as by a microprocessor or digital signal processor implementing a software routine, for example.); and
memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the network node to perform operations comprising (Avidor, 0057: The functions in FIG. 4 may be implemented by hardware or software, such as by a microprocessor or digital signal processor implementing a software routine, for example.
[In order for the functions of fig. 4 to be implemented by software or a software routine, it is necessary for the software to be stored in memory coupled to the microprocessor or digital signal processor.]):
determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in a beam of the plurality of beams (Avidor, 0063: The BS then generates (function 430) the preferred beam and uses the preferred beam to transmit a pilot signal (function 440). The BS then receives reports from all MSs in the MS population it serves (function 450). Each of these reports may include an
R
i
n
term, which as discussed above with respect to the PF algorithm, represents an estimate of the maximum data rate the responding mobile is capable of receiving during the n th timeslot. Each MS in the MS population computes
R
i
n
by measuring the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) of the pilot signal and then applies a desirable transformation, for example, such as Shannon's capacity formula
R
i
n
=
log
2
1
+
S
I
R
n
.
[In receiving reports based on the SIR of the pilot signal, the base station implicitly determines the number of MSs in the beam since only MSs which receive the pilot signal (i.e. served by the preferred beam) would send a report to the base station.]);
determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam (Avidor, 0032: Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2). And 0064: The scheduler at the BS then determines (function 460), based on the reports, which MS will receive a packet in the current timeslot. This may be done using the techniques described above with regard to the PF scheduler, so as to select a 'winning MS'.),
the communication device being in the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.
[As noted above, since the determination is based on
R
i
n
the selected MS is necessarily in the beam.
T
i
n
is the running average throughput of MS
i
at timeslot
n
.]);
selecting the beam based on the scheduling priority of the communication device (Avidor, 0032: In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. 0061: For the selected MS, a preferred beam may be determined (function 430) according a preferred beam algorithm, to be described in further detail below. And 0067-0068: The preferred beam may be determined in accordance with the following ‘preferred beam algorithm’: The beam preferred by MS
i
at timeslot
n
is
b
j
if:
j
=
arg
max
k
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
N
}
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
R
i
n
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
(3) where
δ
l
,
k
=
1
,
k
=
l
;
l
,
k
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
0
,
k
≠
l
In expression (3),
j
(
m
)
is the index of the beam that was generated by the BS in timeslot
n
. For those
m
where
j
(
m
)
=
k
,
δ
=
1
. For example, if
k
=
3
, for all
m
's where the third beam was generated,
δ
=
1
, else
δ
=
0
. Expression (3) says: the preferred beam of MS
i
at timeslot
n
is the beam having the highest running average fed-back rates of mobile
i
.); and
responsive to selecting the beam, scheduling communication with the communication device via the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.).
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly disclose determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: The throughput of a UE is computed based on the Shannon-Hartley capacity expressed as
R
u
=
p
u
⋅
η
⋅
log
2
1
+
γ
u
(12) where
η
is the system bandwidth. … For this, a recursive definition is needed since the distribution of spare resources on the remaining beams may lead again to a limitation due to a crowded beam in the remaining set. Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14). Herein, it is important to note that scheduling probabilities of the UEs served by the same beam are same but those corresponding to UEs of different beams from same cell are not necessarily equal.
[
γ
u
is the SINR of a UE
u
,
|
|
⋅
|
|
is the cardinality operator which returns the number of element in a set,
K
c
is the maximum number of simultaneously scheduled beams,
W
c
is the set of UEs in cell
c
,
w
c
,
b
is the set of UEs served by beam
b
in cell
c
, and
p
i
is the scheduling probability of UE
i
. Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 14, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claims 13 and 15.
Avidor further teaches wherein the scheduling priority of the communication device of the plurality of communication devices is a first scheduling priority (Avidor, 0060: The BS selects (function 420) a MS from the MS population based on a tracked parameter. And 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.
[The first selected MS (function 420) has a priority which corresponds to the first scheduling priority.]).
However, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in the beam of the plurality of beams is a first number, and wherein determining the first number comprises determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in each beam of the plurality of beams; and wherein determining the first scheduling priority comprises determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in the beam of the plurality of beams is a first number (Ali, III-C, pg. 4 quoted below.), and
wherein determining the first number comprises determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[In order to sort the beams with respect to their number of UEs, the number of UEs served by the beam is necessarily determined.]); and
wherein determining the first scheduling priority comprises determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: equation (14) quoted above.
[Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 17, Avidor teaches a computer program product comprising a non- transitory storage medium comprising program code to be executed by processing circuitry of a network node (Avidor, 0057: The functions in FIG. 4 may be implemented by hardware or software, such as by a microprocessor or digital signal processor implementing a software routine, for example.)
configured to communicate with a plurality of communication devices in a communications network via a plurality of beams (Avidor, 0012: An exemplary embodiment of the present invention is directed to a method of determining a beam to be generated for a user. A user may be selected from a user population based on a parameter that is tracked for each user in the user population, and a beam preferred by that selected user may be determined. And 0056: The following notation and conditions are introduced: for the following algorithms, there is a finite collection of N pre-selected beams:
{
b
1
,
b
2
,
…
,
b
N
}
, and the expression
j
m
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
represents the index of the beam used in timeslot
m
for
m
=
0
,
1
,
…
,
n
-
1
where
n
is the current timeslot.), whereby execution of the program code causes the network node to perform operations comprising:
determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in a beam of the plurality of beams (Avidor, 0063: The BS then generates (function 430) the preferred beam and uses the preferred beam to transmit a pilot signal (function 440). The BS then receives reports from all MSs in the MS population it serves (function 450). Each of these reports may include an
R
i
n
term, which as discussed above with respect to the PF algorithm, represents an estimate of the maximum data rate the responding mobile is capable of receiving during the n th timeslot. Each MS in the MS population computes
R
i
n
by measuring the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) of the pilot signal and then applies a desirable transformation, for example, such as Shannon's capacity formula
R
i
n
=
log
2
1
+
S
I
R
n
.
[In receiving reports based on the SIR of the pilot signal, the base station implicitly determines the number of MSs in the beam since only MSs which receive the pilot signal (i.e. served by the preferred beam) would send a report to the base station.]);
determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam (Avidor, 0032: Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2). And 0064: The scheduler at the BS then determines (function 460), based on the reports, which MS will receive a packet in the current timeslot. This may be done using the techniques described above with regard to the PF scheduler, so as to select a 'winning MS'.),
the communication device being in the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.
[As noted above, since the determination is based on
R
i
n
the selected MS is necessarily in the beam.
T
i
n
is the running average throughput of MS
i
at timeslot
n
.]);
selecting the beam based on the scheduling priority of the communication device (Avidor, 0032: In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. 0061: For the selected MS, a preferred beam may be determined (function 430) according a preferred beam algorithm, to be described in further detail below. And 0067-0068: The preferred beam may be determined in accordance with the following ‘preferred beam algorithm’: The beam preferred by MS
i
at timeslot
n
is
b
j
if:
j
=
arg
max
k
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
N
}
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
R
i
n
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
(3) where
δ
l
,
k
=
1
,
k
=
l
;
l
,
k
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
0
,
k
≠
l
In expression (3),
j
(
m
)
is the index of the beam that was generated by the BS in timeslot
n
. For those
m
where
j
(
m
)
=
k
,
δ
=
1
. For example, if
k
=
3
, for all
m
's where the third beam was generated,
δ
=
1
, else
δ
=
0
. Expression (3) says: the preferred beam of MS
i
at timeslot
n
is the beam having the highest running average fed-back rates of mobile
i
.); and
responsive to selecting the beam, scheduling communication with the communication device via the beam (Avidor, 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.).
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly disclose determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches determining a scheduling priority of a communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices that are in the beam (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: The throughput of a UE is computed based on the Shannon-Hartley capacity expressed as
R
u
=
p
u
⋅
η
⋅
log
2
1
+
γ
u
(12) where
η
is the system bandwidth. … For this, a recursive definition is needed since the distribution of spare resources on the remaining beams may lead again to a limitation due to a crowded beam in the remaining set. Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14). Herein, it is important to note that scheduling probabilities of the UEs served by the same beam are same but those corresponding to UEs of different beams from same cell are not necessarily equal.
[
γ
u
is the SINR of a UE
u
,
|
|
⋅
|
|
is the cardinality operator which returns the number of element in a set,
K
c
is the maximum number of simultaneously scheduled beams,
W
c
is the set of UEs in cell
c
,
w
c
,
b
is the set of UEs served by beam
b
in cell
c
, and
p
i
is the scheduling probability of UE
i
. Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 18, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 17.
Avidor further teaches wherein the scheduling priority of the communication device of the plurality of communication devices is a first scheduling priority (Avidor, 0060: The BS selects (function 420) a MS from the MS population based on a tracked parameter. And 0065: The BS then proceeds to transmit data (function 470) to the MS
J
n
selected by the scheduler in step 460 (which may, or may not be the MS selected in step 420) at the rate
R
J
n
n
(see equation (2)) on the beam selected in step 430.
[The first selected MS (function 420) has a priority which corresponds to the first scheduling priority.]).
However, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in the beam of the plurality of beams is a first number, and wherein determining the first number comprises determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in each beam of the plurality of beams; and wherein determining the first scheduling priority comprises determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein the number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in the beam of the plurality of beams is a first number (Ali, III-C, pg. 4 quoted below.), and
wherein determining the first number comprises determining a number of communication devices of the plurality of communication devices that are in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[In order to sort the beams with respect to their number of UEs, the number of UEs served by the beam is necessarily determined.]); and
wherein determining the first scheduling priority comprises determining a scheduling priority for each communication device of the plurality of communication devices based on the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 3-4: equation (14) quoted above.
[Avidor discloses determining the scheduling priority of a UE based on the Shannon capacity. Substituting the result for
p
u
(Ali (14)) into
R
u
(Ali (12)), then substituting the resulting
R
u
for
R
i
n
in
J
n
(Avidor (2)), the resulting scheduling priority is determined with respect to the number of UEs/MSs in the beam.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 21, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 17.
Avidor further teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining that the communication device has a greatest scheduling priority (Avidor, 0032: Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2). In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. Including the term
T
i
n
in the denominator means that MSs that have lately been "starved" (e.g., have not received a packet for a unusually large number of timeslots) are given relative priority in the scheduling process. And 0060: The BS selects (function 420) a MS from the MS population based on a tracked parameter. … In the instant example, the BS selects the MS that is the most 'starved' in terms of when the last packet was received.), and
wherein selecting the beam comprises selecting the beam based on determining that the communication device has the greatest scheduling priority (Avidor, 0061: For the selected MS, a preferred beam may be determined (function 430) according a preferred beam algorithm, to be described in further detail below. And 0067-0068: The beam preferred by MS
i
at timeslot
n
is
b
j
if:
j
=
arg
max
k
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
N
}
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
R
i
n
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
(3) where
δ
l
,
k
=
1
,
k
=
l
;
l
,
k
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
0
,
k
≠
l
In expression (3),
j
(
m
)
is the index of the beam that was generated by the BS in timeslot
n
.).
Re. Claim 22, Avidor in view of Ali teaches claim 21.
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining the first scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices in the beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining the first scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices in the beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The right-hand option in
m
i
n
⋅
,
⋅
produces a scheduling probability relative to the number of UEs in other beams.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Re. Claim 23. Avidor in view of Ali teaches Claim 13,
Avidor further teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining that the communication device has a greatest scheduling priority (Avidor, 0032: Accordingly, a scheduling decision implemented by a BS running a PF scheduler may be described by expression (2), where, in a timeslot n, the BS schedules a MS
J
n
satisfying:
J
n
=
arg
max
i
∈
1
,
…
,
N
M
R
i
n
T
i
n
,
n
=
0,1
,
2
,
…
(2). In other words, expression (2) says that the BS transmits to the MS
i
having the largest
R
i
n
/
T
i
n
ratio. Including the term
T
i
n
in the denominator means that MSs that have lately been "starved" (e.g., have not received a packet for a unusually large number of timeslots) are given relative priority in the scheduling process. And 0060: The BS selects (function 420) a MS from the MS population based on a tracked parameter. … In the instant example, the BS selects the MS that is the most 'starved' in terms of when the last packet was received.), and
wherein selecting the beam comprises selecting the beam based on determining that the communication device has the greatest scheduling priority (Avidor, 0061: For the selected MS, a preferred beam may be determined (function 430) according a preferred beam algorithm, to be described in further detail below. And 0067-0068: The beam preferred by MS
i
at timeslot
n
is
b
j
if:
j
=
arg
max
k
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
N
}
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
R
i
n
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
∑
m
=
0
n
-
1
δ
j
m
,
k
a
n
-
m
-
1
(3) where
δ
l
,
k
=
1
,
k
=
l
;
l
,
k
∈
{
1
,
…
,
N
}
0
,
k
≠
l
In expression (3),
j
(
m
)
is the index of the beam that was generated by the BS in timeslot
n
.).
Re. Claim 24. Avidor in view of Ali teaches Claim 13,
Yet, Avidor does not explicitly teach wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining the first scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices in the beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams.
However, in the related art, Ali teaches wherein determining the first scheduling priority further comprises determining the first scheduling priority based on the number of communication devices in the beam relative to the number of communication devices in each beam of the plurality of beams (Ali, III-C, pg. 4: Assuming that the beams are sorted with respect to their number of UEs
w
c
,
b
,
i.e.,
w
c
,
1
≤
w
c
,
2
≤
…
≤
w
c
,
B
, the scheduling probabilities can be invoked inductively which makes
p
u
of UE
u
served by beam
b
u
∈
w
c
,
b
depends on the previously computed scheduling probabilities
p
i
of the UEs -
i
∈
w
c
,
j
which are served by beams
j
∈
{
1,2
,
…
,
b
-
1
}
:
p
u
=
min
K
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
∑
i
∈
w
c
,
j
p
i
W
c
-
∑
j
=
1
b
-
1
w
c
,
j
,
1
w
c
,
b
,
u
∈
w
c
,
b
(14).
[The right-hand option in
m
i
n
⋅
,
⋅
produces a scheduling probability relative to the number of UEs in other beams.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opportunistic beamforming and scheduling of users in a communication system of Avidor by the teaching of the system model for average downlink SINR in 5G multi-beam networks of Ali. The resulting invention would ensure spare resources of less crowded beams are utilized (Ali, III-C, pg. 4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CASON H MORSE whose telephone number is (571)270-5235. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:00 Mon.-Thurs., Fri. varies.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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.
/C.H.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417