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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment (s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2013/0322349 A1 by Hosangadi et al. (hereafter referred to as Hosangadi).
Regarding claim 1, Hosangadi teaches one or more processors, comprising:
one or more storages to store one or more signal to noise ratio (SNR) measurements received by the one or more processors; and
circuitry to predict one or more wireless transmission error rates based, at least in part, on the one or more SNR measurements and one or more coding rates (see at least ¶ [0063]; “… in step S430 the scheduler 305 predicts Signal to Noise+Interference ratio (SINR) for resources assigned to UE based on the number of assigned resource blocks. Further, the scheduler 305 assigns a preferred modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index to achieve a target Block Error Rate (BLER) based on the predicted SINR. For example, the SINR may be predicted based on an SINR observed for previous VoIP transmissions.”).
Regarding claim 2, Hosangadi teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the circuitry is to cause a modulation and coding scheme to be selected based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates (see at least ¶ [0063]; “…the scheduler 305 assigns a preferred modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index to achieve a target Block Error Rate (BLER) based on the predicted SINR.”).
Regarding claim 3, Hosangadi teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more circuits are to cause a number of resource blocks to be selected based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0054]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Hosangadi teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the circuitry to cause a modulation and coding scheme, and a number of resource blocks to be selected based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0054]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Hosangadi teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more SNR measurements are based, at least in part, on one or more indications of channel quality between a base station and one or more user equipment (UE) devices (see at least ¶ [0063]; “Alternatively, the SINR may be predicted based on recent Sounding Channel Reference Symbol (SRS) observations or Channel Quality Information (CQI) reports from the UE (e.g., UE 105).”).
Regarding claim 6, Hosangadi teaches the one or more processors of claim 1. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the circuitry is to cause a modulation and coding scheme to be selected based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates, and are to cause one or more packets to be transmitted based, at least in part, on the modulation and coding scheme (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0054]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Hosangadi teaches the processor of claim 1. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more circuits are to cause a number of resource blocks to be selected based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates, cause one or more transmission priority metrics to be generated based, at least in part, on the number of resource blocks, and cause one or more packets to be transmitted based, at least in part, on the one or more transmission priority metrics (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0054]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Hosangadi teaches A system, comprising:
one or more storages to store one or more signal to noise ratio (SNR) measurements; and
one or more processors to predict one or more wireless transmission error rates based, at least in part, on the one or more SNR measurements and one or more coding rates (see at least ¶ [0063]; “… in step S430 the scheduler 305 predicts Signal to Noise+Interference ratio (SINR) for resources assigned to UE based on the number of assigned resource blocks. Further, the scheduler 305 assigns a preferred modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index to achieve a target Block Error Rate (BLER) based on the predicted SINR. For example, the SINR may be predicted based on an SINR observed for previous VoIP transmissions.”).
Regarding claim 9, Hosangadi teaches the system of claim 8. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more wireless transmission error rates are block error rates (BLER) of packets to be transmitted to one or more user equipment (UE) devices (see at least Fig. 4 (S430); BLER).
Regarding claim 10, Hosangadi teaches the system of claim 8. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more processors are to cause a modulation and coding scheme to be selected based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates (see at least ¶ [0063]; “…the scheduler 305 assigns a preferred modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index to achieve a target Block Error Rate (BLER) based on the predicted SINR.”).
Regarding claim 11, Hosangadi teaches the system of claim 8. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more processors are to cause a number of resource blocks to be selected to transmit a particular packet based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0054]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Hosangadi teaches the system of claim 8. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more processors are also to: cause a number of resource blocks to be selected to transmit a particular packet based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates; and cause the particular packet to be scheduled to be transmitted based, at least in part, on the number of resource blocks (see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0054]-[0069]).
Claims 14-17 are rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claims 1-4. Claims 14-17 recites similar features as in claims 1-4 for a method.
Regarding claim 18, Hosangadi teaches the method of claim 14. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the wireless transmission error rates are block error rates (BLER) of packets to be transmitted from a base station to one or more user equipment (UE) devices (see at least Fig. 4 (S430); BLER).
Regarding claim 19, Hosangadi teaches the method of claim 14. In addition, Hosangadi teaches wherein the wireless transmission error rates are block error rates (BLER) of packets, and the method further includes: selecting a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) and a number or resource blocks to be used to transmit data based, at least in part, on the one or more wireless transmission error rates; and generating one or more scheduling metrics based, at least in part on the number of resource blocks (see at least ¶ [0063]; “… in step S430 the scheduler 305 predicts Signal to Noise+Interference ratio (SINR) for resources assigned to UE based on the number of assigned resource blocks. Further, the scheduler 305 assigns a preferred modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index to achieve a target Block Error Rate (BLER) based on the predicted SINR. For example, the SINR may be predicted based on an SINR observed for previous VoIP transmissions.”).
Regarding claim 20, Hosangadi teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a set of instructions, which if performed by one or more processors (see at least ¶ [0022]), cause the one or more processors to at least perform the method of claim 14 (see rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosangadi as applied to claim 8 above, in view of US 2018/0227919 A1 by Lee et al. (hereafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Hosangadi teaches the system of claim 8.
Although Hosangadi teaches wherein the one or more SNR measurements are based, at least in part, on one or more indications of channel quality received by a eNodeB from one or more user equipment (UE) devices (see at least ¶ [0061]-[0063]; eNodeB), Hosangadi does not appear to specifically disclose gNodeB.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches gNodeB (see at least ¶ [0009]; “In some implementations, the first and second base stations can include at least one of the following: an eNodeB base station, a gNodeB base station, and any combination thereof.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hosangadi with Lee because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights