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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1-14, drawn to a method performed by a base station of a wireless network to communicate with high-priority user devices and low-priority user devices, classified in H04W72/1268.
II. Claims 15-18, drawn to a method performed by a low priority user device receiving a section assignment, and receiving a section poll, and transmitting poll response, classified in H04W74/06.
III. Claim 19-20, drawn to a base station of a wireless network comprising an artificial intelligence model, classified in H04W72/56.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions in Group I, II and III are directed to related in wireless resource management. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and
During a telephone conversation with inventor Massengill, R. Kemp on 3/20/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ware, Christopher et al. US 20050135317 A1 and Ishii; Hiroyuki et al. US 20100150085 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Ware teaches A method for a base station of a wireless network to communicate with high-priority user devices and low-priority user devices, the method comprising:
b) broadcasting a starting message in a downlink scheduled portion of a resource grid, wherein the starting message indicates a first region of the resource grid, ((0026) The active station is defined as the QSTA 110 that responds to the group poll 410 with a queued inbound QoS data frame 415. Non-active QSTAs 110 do not respond to the group poll 410.)
c) receiving, in the first region, one or more signals transmitted by one or more of the high-priority user devices; (((0026) The active station is defined as the QSTA 110 that responds to the group poll 410 with a queued inbound QoS data frame 415.) and
d) determining, according to a time or frequency of each signal received in the first region, which of the high-priority user devices seeks a transmission grant. ([0027] Next, at step 520, the group scheduler determines whether the active QSTA 10 is finished transmitting by sending a directed CF poll 425 to the active QSTA 110.
[0028] Such back-off algorithms are well known in the art. For example, a back-off algorithm may require a QSTA 110 to generate a random number between zero and a contention window. T)
Ware does not teach
a) allocating each user device of the wireless network to either a high-priority or a low-priority status;
the first region configured for the high-priority user devices to request a transmission grant;
However, Ishii teaches
a) allocating each user device of the wireless network to either a high-priority or a low-priority status; ((page 28, col. 2, Table 5-2 continued, The UEs are prioritized in the order of the Scheduling priority group (Scheduling priority group: High -> Middle -> Low). In each Scheduling priority group, the UEs are prioritized based on the scheduling coefficients. The priority level is determined such as High > Middle > Low.)
the first region configured for the high-priority user devices to request a transmission grant; ([0152] When the base station apparatus receives from the user equipment terminal (UE) "allocation request for the PUSCH: REQUESTING" by means of the Scheduling request and uplink radio resources (PUSCH) have not been allocated to the user equipment terminal (UE)… the following scheduling process is performed assuming that there are available data to be transmitted with respect to the logical channel group corresponding to the high priority group.)
in order to improve transmission properties and system capacity ([0568])
Ware and Ishii are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Ware with the technique of UE prioritization in Ishii in order to improve transmission properties and system capacity.
Regarding claim 2. Ware and Ishii teaches The method of claim 1, Ware teaches wherein the starting message is configured according to 5G or 6G technology. ([0002])
Regarding claim 3. Ware and Ishii teaches The method of claim 1, but it does not teach further comprising: a) transmitting, to each high-priority user device that seeks a transmission grant, a BSR (buffer status report) grant allocating resources for an uplink BSR message; b) receiving, from each of the high-priority user devices that seeks a transmission grant, a BSR message; c) transmitting, responsive to each BSR message, a message grant allocating resources for an uplink data message; and d) receiving, responsive to each message grant, an uplink data message.
However, Ishii teaches
a) transmitting, to each high-priority user device that seeks a transmission grant, a BSR (buffer status report) grant allocating resources for an uplink BSR message; ([0392] [0392] Regarding resource allocation according to persistent scheduling in uplink, in the case where data are generated, i.e., in the case of transition from a silence period to a talk spurt, persistent resources are allocated at the timing when the Scheduling Request and the Buffer Status Report are transmitted.)
b) receiving, from each of the high-priority user devices that seeks a transmission grant, a BSR message; (Id.)
c) transmitting, responsive to each BSR message, a message grant ([0370] In step S914, the base station apparatus determines whether the UL Scheduling Grant for initial transmission in the corresponding sub-frame is to be transmitted.) allocating resources for an uplink data message; ([0006] The transmission format of the shared channel and identification information of the user equipment terminal which communicates using the shared channel in the corresponding sub-frame are collectively called an Uplink Scheduling Grant.) and
d) receiving, responsive to each message grant, an uplink data message. ([0413] In step S711, Half Duplex Check is performed. The Half Duplex refers to a communication scheme in which uplink transmission and downlink transmission are not performed simultaneously. In other words, in the Half Duplex mode, uplink transmission and downlink transmission are performed by the user equipment terminal (UE) at different timings.)
in order to improve transmission properties and system capacity ([0568])
Ware and Ishii are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Ware with the technique of UE prioritization in Ishii in order to improve transmission properties and system capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468