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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 3 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 3 September 2026, claims 33, 38, 39, 46, 51, and 52 have been amended.
Claims 33-35, 37-40, 46-48, and 50-52 are now pending.
Claims 33-35, 37-40, 46-48, and 50-52 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 September 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 33–35, 37–40, 46–48, and 50–52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written-description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 33 recites that the BET comprises “a burst arrival time (BAT) associated with an arrival of a last packet in the first burst of data traffic at an ingress point.” Independent claim 46 recites corresponding subject matter.
The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of a BAT associated with arrival of the last packet of a burst. Rather, paragraph [0004] expressly defines Burst Arrival Time as the latest possible time when the first packet of a data burst arrives at the ingress of the RAN for a downlink flow or the egress interface of the UE for an uplink flow. Paragraphs [0147], [0173], [0190], and [0216] likewise associate BAT with arrival of the first packet.
The Specification separately describes the latest time when the last bit of the last packet is estimated to arrive at the 5G-system ingress point as a component used in calculating BET. See paragraphs [0049]–[0052]. Paragraph [0164] similarly describes BET as including a latest time when the last packet is estimated to arrive within the radio network system and a time duration estimated for the packet to arrive at the RAN node. These passages do not identify the last-packet arrival time as BAT. Instead, they distinguish the disclosed BAT, which concerns arrival of the first packet, from the last-packet arrival time used in determining BET.
Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not provide written-description support for “a burst arrival time (BAT) associated with an arrival of a last packet,” as presently claimed.
Claim 33 further recites “aggregating packets associated with a plurality of bursts of data traffic that includes the first burst of data traffic into a single Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU).” Claim 46 recites corresponding subject matter.
The originally filed disclosure describes aggregating multiple packets associated with a single burst into a common or single MAC PDU. See paragraphs [0004], [0045], [0057], and [0198], and original claims 35–36 and 48–49. Although the Specification separately states that a traffic flow may comprise a plurality of periodic bursts, it does not describe aggregating packets belonging to multiple different bursts together into one single MAC PDU. Disclosure of multiple bursts and separate disclosure of aggregating packets within a burst do not reasonably convey possession of the claimed cross-burst aggregation.
Claims 34–35 and 37–40 depend from claim 33 and do not cure these deficiencies. Claims 47–48 and 50–52 depend from claim 46 and likewise do not cure the deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 33-35, 37-38, 40, 46-48, and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hande et al. (US 2020/0383004 A1) in view of Babaei et al. (US 10,638,487 B2), and further in view of Nakata (US 2009/0059958 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Hande discloses a method by a radio access network node (RAN) comprising: receiving, from a network node, information indicating a burst end time (BET) for a first burst of data traffic within a traffic flow.
Specifically, Hande discloses that an application-server entity, such as an XR edge data-network server or edge-cloud server, may provide burst parameters including a burst start time, burst spread or duration, and burst end time to a core-network entity, and that the core-network entity may forward the burst parameters to a RAN (Hande, Figs. 16 and 17A–17C; paras. [0063], [0137]–[0140], and [0150]). Hande further discloses that the traffic flow includes a plurality of bursts comprising packets and that the RAN uses the received burst parameters defining the burst structure and timing boundaries when scheduling or otherwise communicating the traffic flow with a wireless device (Hande, paras. [0063] and [0139]–[0143]).
Thus, Hande discloses a RAN node receiving, from a network node, information indicating a burst end time for a first burst within a traffic flow containing a plurality of bursts and using the received burst timing information when communicating the traffic flow to a wireless device.
Hande does not specifically disclose based on at least the BET for the first burst of data traffic, aggregating packets associated with a plurality of bursts of data traffic that includes the first burst of data traffic into a single Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) for a transmission of the traffic flow to a wireless device.
Babaei, however, discloses MAC-layer logical-channel prioritization, multiplexing, and assembly procedures in which a MAC entity allocates resources of one or more grants to one or more logical channels and multiplexes data from one or more logical channels to form a MAC PDU. Babaei further discloses that the amount of data included in the MAC PDU may depend on applicable QoS parameters, logical-channel priority, transmission duration, TTI, and grant, and that a MAC transport block may contain a plurality of MAC SDUs, RLC PDUs, and/or PDCP PDUs (Babaei, col. 21, lines 1–5; col. 25, lines 7–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Babaei’s MAC-layer multiplexing and MAC-PDU assembly procedure to Hande’s burst-aware RAN scheduling framework. Hande provides the RAN with information defining the timing boundaries of the bursts, while Babaei provides a known procedure for multiplexing available packet data into a MAC PDU for an available transmission opportunity. The ordinarily skilled artisan would therefore have used Hande’s burst-end information to determine whether packets associated with the first burst would be available for inclusion in a particular MAC PDU.
When the burst-end information indicates that the packets associated with the first burst will be available before assembly or transmission of the MAC PDU, it would have been obvious to multiplex those packets together with already-available packets associated with one or more other buffered or co-pending bursts of the traffic flow into the single MAC PDU according to Babaei. Doing so would predictably improve utilization of the available granted resources, reduce the transmission of underfilled MAC PDUs or transport blocks, and improve radio-resource efficiency. Accordingly, the combination of Hande and Babaei teaches or suggests based on at least the BET for the first burst of data traffic, aggregating packets associated with a plurality of bursts of data traffic that includes the first burst of data traffic into a single Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) for a transmission of the traffic flow to a wireless device.
The combination of Hande and Babaei does not explicitly disclose wherein the BET comprises: a burst arrival time (BAT) associated with an arrival of a last packet in the first burst of data traffic at an ingress point, and an estimated time for the last packet to arrive at the RAN node.
Nakata discloses monitoring a block or train of data packets transferred between network nodes and determining timing associated with its tail data packet. Nakata teaches determining an upstream timestamp or reception-completion time associated with the tail packet and using an estimated or predicted path delay, transmission speed, and historical delay information to predict the downstream arrival or reception-completion time of the tail packet (Nakata, paras. [0135], [0137]–[0138], [0147], and [0149]–[0157]). Nakata therefore teaches information comprising both timing associated with the tail packet at an upstream point and an estimated time at which that tail packet will arrive at a downstream node.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hande’s burst-end information according to Nakata so that the information provided to the RAN includes the upstream arrival timing of the last packet and an estimated time for that packet to arrive at the RAN. Hande uses burst-end information to identify the temporal boundary of the burst for RAN scheduling, while Nakata provides a known technique for predicting when the tail packet will reach a downstream node by accounting for upstream tail-packet timing and network-path delay. Applying Nakata’s technique would have enabled Hande’s RAN to determine more accurately when the complete first burst would be available at the RAN, thereby avoiding premature scheduling or MAC-PDU assembly and improving utilization of the available transmission opportunity. Accordingly, the combination of Hande, Babaei, and Nakata teaches or suggests wherein the BET comprises: a burst arrival time (BAT) associated with an arrival of a last packet in the first burst of data traffic at an ingress point, and an estimated time for the last packet to arrive at the RAN node.
In the resulting combination, the estimated arrival of the last packet at the RAN provides the timing boundary used in Babaei’s MAC-layer multiplexing procedure. When that timing indicates that the first burst will be complete before the applicable MAC-PDU assembly or transmission time, packets associated with the first burst are multiplexed with available packets associated with one or more other bursts into the single MAC PDU.
Regarding claim 34, Hande further discloses further comprising scheduling at least one radio resource for the transmission based on the information indicating the BET for the first burst of data traffic (para. 111, 119, performing scheduling resources based on the burst factor).
Regarding claim 35, Hande further discloses further comprising:
transmitting the aggregated packets associated with the first burst of data traffic based on the scheduling of the at least one radio resource (para. 111, 119).
Regarding claim 37, Hande further discloses further comprising transmitting scheduling information to the wireless device, the scheduling information indicating the at least one radio resource scheduled for the transmission by the radio access network node to the wireless device (para. 65, 73).
Regarding claim 38, Hande further discloses wherein the at least one radio resource for the burst of data traffic within the traffic flow is scheduled based on:
the information at a time after the BET,
the information at a time after the BET but before a latest time at which one or more packets are to be delivered according to a packet delay budget (PDB), minus an expected transmission time, or
the information at a time after the BET but before a latest time at which one or more packets are to be delivered according to a packet delay budget (PDB), minus an expected transmission time (para. 65, 73).
Regarding claim 40, Hande further discloses wherein the traffic flow comprises the plurality of bursts of data traffic, and wherein the first burst of data traffic is within the plurality of bursts of data traffic (para. 111, 118).
Claim 46 recites a radio access network node corresponding to the method of claim 33, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 47-48 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 34-35, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claims 39 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hande et al. (US 2020/0383004 A1) in view of Babaei et al. (US 10,638,487 B2), further in view of Nakata (US 2009/0059958 A1), and still further in view of Kuo et al. (US 2023/0239868 A1).
Regarding claims 39 and 52, the combination of Hande, Babaei, and Nakata teaches or suggests the method of claims 33 and the radio access network node of claim 46, as set forth above.
The combination of Hande, Babaei, and Nakata does not specifically disclose wherein the information comprises Time Sensitive Communication Assistance Information (TSCAI) associated with a Time Sensitive Communications (TSC), and wherein the TSC is associated with at least one Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) service.
Kuo, however, discloses providing time-sensitive communication assistance information to a base station for scheduling traffic associated with time-sensitive communication data streams. Kuo explains that, in a 3GPP system supporting time-sensitive networking services, a base station may receive information relating to traffic characteristics of a TSC data stream from the core network to enable more efficient radio-resource allocation. Kuo further discloses that the TSCAI may identify traffic characteristics such as burst-arrival periodicity and burst size, thereby permitting the base station to configure scheduling resources, including configured grants for uplink transmissions and semi-persistent scheduling resources for downlink transmissions, with appropriate periodicities and transport-block sizes (Kuo, abstract and para. [0029]). Accordingly, Kuo teaches information comprising TSCAI associated with a TSC, wherein the TSC is associated with a TSN service.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Kuo’s TSCAI into the burst-information signaling of Hande, as modified by Babaei and Nakata. Hande teaches providing burst parameters from the core network to the RAN for scheduling communications with a wireless device, while Kuo teaches a standardized assistance-information mechanism for communicating burst-related characteristics of time-sensitive traffic from the core network to a base station. Employing Kuo’s TSCAI as the information carrying or accompanying the burst parameters in the modified Hande system would have predictably enabled the RAN to identify and schedule the time-sensitive traffic according to its periodicity, burst characteristics, and timing requirements.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination to improve the allocation and configuration of radio resources for TSC data streams associated with TSN services, including selection of appropriate transmission periodicities and transport-block sizes. The modification would have amounted to using Kuo’s known standardized signaling format for the burst-related assistance information already communicated to and used by Hande’s RAN and would have produced the predictable result of improved scheduling for time-sensitive traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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) 272-3988. 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.
/LUAT PHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights