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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 12/29/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification, 37 pages, has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Specification, page 11, paragraphs [0061] and [0064], group figures, together, which is improper. The description of several Figures is identical, which is improper. Each Figure needs to be described individually and uniquely, and, the descriptions of Figures may not be identical, they need to be different, from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: The claim may be directed to a transitory medium.
The above rejection may be overcome, by amending the Claim, as follows: A --non- transitory-- computer-readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble, of dependent Claims 2-10, needs to be changed, for proper antecedent basis: The --resource scheduling-- method.
Claim 10: “RTT” needs to be defined, spelled out, in the Claim. (Claim 10 is not dependent on Claim 4).
The preamble, of dependent Claims 12-19, needs to be changed, for proper antecedent basis: The --resource scheduling-- apparatus.
Claims 4 and 14, lines 3-4, from the bottom of the claim: “ideal time point” “learning” needs to be defined, in the Claims, e.g., see Specification, page 23, paragraphs [00131] - [00132].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by WO 2019095278 A1, hereinafter Xu.
Claim 1. Xu teaches a resource scheduling method ([0065]), comprising: receiving, by a first network element, a first coded frame (Fig. 12:1202) ([0063]); determining, by the first network element (Fig. 12:1204), a remaining delay budget of the first coded frame based on an actual time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element ([0058] The Packet Delay Budget (PDB) defines an upper bound for the time that a packet may be delayed between the UE and the UPF. A 20ms delay budget is assumed between the packet gateway (e.g. UPF for 5G) and a base station. The remaining delay budget is for the air interface in the telecommunications network. The RAN mainly considers the PDB to determine when a packet should be sent to the UE. For example, for quality class identified (QCI) 1, 80%of the PDB, i.e. 80ms, is the portion of the delay budget assigned to the air interface. The PDB is met as long as the RAN node can send the data at any time within an 80ms window (e.g. 10: 00: 00.100-10: 00: 00.180) . According to some example embodiments, the RAN scheduling may also consider the synchronization requirement and PDV requirement, which may change the delivery window. For example, the size of the data window might be reduced to 30 ms, (for example, 10: 00: 00.130 -10: 00: 00.160, in order to meet the requirements of PDB, synchronization, and PDV) ([0063]); and scheduling, by the first network element (Fig. 12:1206), a transmission resource for the first coded frame based on the remaining delay budget (Fig. 12:1208) ([0063] [0065]).
Claim 2. Xu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the scheduling the transmission resource for the first coded frame based on the remaining delay budget comprises: determining, by the first network element, a scheduling priority based on the remaining delay budget; and scheduling, by the first network element, the transmission resource for the first coded frame based on the scheduling priority, wherein a smaller remaining delay budget indicates a higher scheduling priority of the transmission resource ([0089] As shown in block 708 of Figure 7, the apparatus of this example embodiment includes means, such as the processing circuitry 308, the processor 302, or the like, for determining a transport layer DSCP value based on the suggested DSCP value and the scheduling assistance information. In some examples, for data packets of the same QoS flow, the DSCP value may be different. For example, if the video packet V1 has already experienced a long delay, or close to the suggested transmission deadline, the video packet is to be treated with higher priority than other packets. Thus the DSCP value for video packet V1 is different to the suggested DSCP value. In another example, the suggested DSCP value given by the PCF for audio packets and video packets may be “Default PHB” , which is may be best-effort traffic. In an instance in which the audio packet has already experienced long delay, the UPF may set the DSCP to “Expedited Forwarding (EF) PHB” for this audio packet).
Claim 3. Xu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the remaining delay budget is a time interval between the actual time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element and an expected time point; and the expected time point is an expected latest time point at which the first network element sends the first coded frame, or an expected latest time point at which the first coded frame is transmitted to a second network element, or an expected latest time point at which decoding of the first coded frame is completed at the second network element ([0058]).
Claim 9. Xu teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the first network element, an expected time point of a second coded frame based on the expected time point of the first coded frame and a frame rate of a coded stream, wherein the second coded frame is a frame next to the first coded frame ([0063] [0065]).
Claim 11 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding claim 1, with the addition of: Xu teaches a resource scheduling apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more memories including computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations (Fig. 3-4).
Claims 12-13 and 19 are rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claims 2-3 and 9.
Claim 20 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding claim 1, with the addition of: Xu teaches a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores instructions, and when the instructions are run on a computer, the computer is enabled to perform a method (Fig. 3-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibata (US 20070280168 A1).
Claim 10. Xu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the remaining delay budget is determined based on end-to-end RTT of the first coded frame, instruction processing time of an application layer device, processing time of an encoder side, an actual time point at which the first coded frame is sent from the encoder side, the actual time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element, and processing time of a decoder side ([0063] [0065]).
Xu does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Xu does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: end-to-end RTT.
The missing elements are disclosed by Shibata ([0060] Here, RTT refers to a delay time until an ACK/NACK response is received after a base station has transmitted a downlink signal. ACK indicates that a mobile station successfully decoded a downlink signal without errors, while NACK indicates that errors were found. Accordingly, the packet storage no longer needs to store a transmitted packet for which ACK has been returned. On the other hand, a transmitted packet should be retransmitted if NACK is returned therefor. However, since an allowable limit is defined for the delay time, the associated transmitted packet is not retransmitted but discarded if acceptable delay determination module 23 determines that the acceptable delay is exceeded. Retransmission determination module 21 determines "retransmission not required" when "ACK" is returned or when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is exceeded," and determines "retransmission required" when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is not exceeded." [0061] Transmission information storage 22 acquires information such as MS-ID, QoS, time of arrival, number of times of retransmission of a packet which is given a transmission opportunity, based on the scheduling result from scheduling controller 6, and saves the information until RTT is elapsed, at which time retransmission determination module 21 performs the retransmission determination. Then, transmission information storage 22 notifies retransmission determination module 21 of MS-ID of the packet transmitted RTT before, and notifies acceptable delay determination module 23 of QoS, time of arrival, and number of times of retransmissions.)
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Shibata [0005] - [0026].
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 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, and,
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Allowed limitations:
Claim 1. A resource scheduling method, comprising: receiving, by a first network element, a first coded frame; determining, by the first network element, a remaining delay budget of the first coded frame based on an actual time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element; and scheduling, by the first network element, a transmission resource for the first coded frame based on the remaining delay budget
, wherein the remaining delay budget is a time interval between the actual time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element and an expected time point; and the expected time point is an expected latest time point at which the first network element sends the first coded frame, or an expected latest time point at which the first coded frame is transmitted to a second network element, or an expected latest time point at which decoding of the first coded frame is completed at the second network element
, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the first network element, the expected time point based on actual arrival time points of a plurality of coded frames that arrive at the first network element within a first time period, an ideal time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element, a maximum delay budget allocated to the first network element, and a predefined frame loss rate threshold, wherein an end time point of the first time period is the actual time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element, and duration of the first time period is a predefined value; the ideal time point at which the first coded frame arrives at the first network element is obtained by learning network jitter of a transmission link between an encoder side of the first coded frame and the first network element; and the maximum delay budget is determined based on end-to-end round trip time (RTT) of the first coded frame.
Claims 5-8 are allowable because of their dependency on Claim 4.
Claims 14-18 correspond to Claims 4-8 and are allowable because of the same reasons.
Prior art, for Claims 1-3, has been provided above.
The closest prior art, for Claim 4, is the same reference, e.g., see Tables 1-2. The underlined features, after overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in combination with the rest of the limitations, above, are not disclosed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and Claims:
Shibata (US 20070280168 A1)
[0081] Scheduling determination module 46 compares the priorities for transmission candidate packets on a mobile station-by-mobile station basis and on a QoS-by-QoS basis, notified from scheduling processors 41.sub.1-41.sub.n, and assigns a transmission opportunity to a transmission candidate packet which is given the highest priority. If there are a plurality of transmission candidates which are given the highest priority, scheduling determination module 46 assigns a transmission opportunity to a transmission candidate which has the shortest remaining time within the acceptable delay period. If there are a plurality of transmission candidates which are given the highest priority and have the shortest remaining time within the acceptable delay period, scheduling determination module 46 assigns a transmission opportunity to a transmission candidate which has waited the longest time for a transmission opportunity since the preceding assignment.
Prakash (US 20080186931 A1)
Fig. 3-14
[0064] FIG. 12 shows a design of an apparatus 1200 for sending resource requests by considering spectral efficiency. Apparatus 1200 includes means for determining backlog level information based on amount of data to send and spectral efficiency (module 1212) and means for generating a resource request comprising the backlog level information (module 1214).
[0067] control messages are resource requests, and the terminal may send the second resource request for a stream before the backoff timer expires if (i) the stream has higher priority than the highest priority of at least one stream signaled in the first resource request, (ii) the stream has a shortest latency deadline and the shortest latency deadline is not signaled in the first resource request.
Banerjee (US 7190669 B2)
(2:11-19) controlling the flow of data traffic from a source node to a destination node through a flow-controlling node in a data communication network. The flow-controlling node monitors data traffic transiting therethrough to detect a congested condition. A congestion notification is sent to the source node when the congested condition is detected. The source node determines a delay period based on a packet inter-arrival time of data traffic at the source node. The source node then delays direction of data traffic to the flow-controlling node by the delay period.
(5:33-52) the value of the multiplier, k, may be determined by the source node 36 in cooperation with the flow-controlling node 34 during data traffic transmission. A mean delay is determined by the traffic monitor 74 for each of a predetermined number of samples of data packets from the source node 36. The source node 36 informs the flow-controlling node 34 of the start and the size of each sample. Such information may be coded as part of a transmitted data packet or in a separate control frame (both of which are not shown). The flow-controlling node 34 determines the mean delay of each sample and returns the mean delay to the source node 36 when the last data packet of each sample is received. The value of k at the source node 36 is set to a different preliminary value for each of the samples. The preliminary value of k is selected from a predetermined range of values, such as 0 2.5. The final value of the multiplier, k, is set to the preliminary value of k for the sample that results in the lowest mean delay. The multiplier, k, then retains this final value of k when processing data packets subsequent to those that form the samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOOMAN HOUSHMAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT. 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.
/H.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465