DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 01/06/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1-2, 8, 10-13, and 25 were amended, claims 3-6 and 15-18 were cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 7-14, 19, and 25 remain pending.
The objections to claims 10, 11, and 18 are withdrawn because the most recent amendment corrected the corresponding errors.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are also withdrawn because the most recent amendment introduced patentable subject matter into the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
In the previous non-final rejection dated 10/17/2025, Claims 3-6 and 15-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Chen in view of Inokuchi et al. However, after reconsidering these limitations after the most recent amendment on 01/06/2026 moved those limitations into the independent claims, the examiner believes that additional disclosure from Chen which was not cited in the previous office action anticipates these features. Thus, the examiner believes these limitations are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in light of this additional disclosure even though they were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. This reconsideration is the reason for issuing a second non-final rejection. The applicant’s specific arguments against the combination of Chen and Inokuchi the previous office action relied on is addressed in greater detail below.
On page 9 of their remarks, the applicant argues against Inokuchi’s relevance to the pending claims, writing, “Inokuchi describes the selection of UE groups during a current transmission period using proportional fair scheduling. In contrast, the claimed invention is directed to determining of time domain metrics for individual user equipment” (Applicant Remarks, p. 9; cf. Inokuchi, 0094).
However, this argument against Inokuchi is moot because upon reconsideration, the examiner believes Chen teaches this claim limitation, making it unnecessary to cite Inokuchi. Specifically, paragraphs 0004-0005 of Chen describe a conventional proportional fairness scheduling algorithm based on a ratio, “R[n]/Rav”, which is the ratio of the instantaneous signal strength to its average value and qualifies as a “time domain metric”.
The applicant further argues on page 9 of their remarks that “[i]t is respectfully submitted that Chen and Inokuchi, whether taken singly or in any reasonable combination, fail to teach or suggest the time domain metric being based on both ‘a sum of scheduling weights associated with all bearers of that respective user equipment’ and ‘a proportional fair metric for the user equipment’” (Remarks, p. 9).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, paragraphs 0004-0005 of Chen describe a proportional fairness scheduling algorithm which “has a weight calculation that accounts for both scheduled averaged data rate and channel quality per bearer” (Chen, 0005). Thus, the “time-domain metric”, which is the output of the proportional fair algorithm, does account for “weight calculation” based on an average data rate (“Rave”) and each individual bearer.
Thus, upon reconsideration of the claims in view of this additional disclosure from Chen, the examiner believes Chen to anticipate each feature of amended claim 1, making an anticipation rejection of the independent claims based on Chen alone proper under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2022/0312432 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
As to Claim 1, 13, and 25:
Chen describes a method for a base station to schedule wireless devices using a proportional fair scheduling (PFS) scheduling algorithm.
Specifically, Chen teaches:
At least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform
See Fig. 5 of Chen, a diagram of a base station, and the accompanying description in paragraph 0080.
Determining which one or more user equipment of a plurality of user equipments are to be scheduled in a scheduling round, based on an associated quality of service and on a time domain metric associated with a respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment
Paragraph 0023 of Chen describes “schedul[ing] a transmission ... based on the scheduling weights of the first and second wireless devices” (Chen, 0023). Fig. 4 of Chen, and the description in paragraph 0037, also show that the scheduling weights are based on different QoS requirements. Here, the “scheduling weights” described in paragraph 0023 anticipate the “time domain metric”.
The time domain metric associated with the respective user equipment is based on a sum of scheduling weights associated with all bearers of that respective user equipment and a proportional fair metric for the user equipment
Chen teaches using “PFS [proportional fair scheduler] weights of the M UEs so that the UEs have more opportunities to be scheduled” (Chen, 0055). Paragraphs 0004-0005 of Chen describe the PFS algorithm, stating, “[a] scheduler uses the weight functions to realize the QoS and to optimize the performance” (Chen, 0005). Chen further elaborates that this “weight calculation ... accounts for both scheduled averaged data rate and channel quality per bearer” (Chen, 0005).
The proportional fair metric being based on an instantaneous throughput for the respective user equipment and an average throughput for the respective user equipment
Chen teaches that in the proportional fair scheduling algorithm, “[t]he user with the largest R[n]/Rav is served first” (Chen, 0004). Here, “R[n]” denotes instantaneous throughput and “Rav” signifies average throughput.
Claim 13 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 25 describes an alternative apparatus that is substantially the same as the device in Claim 1 but alternatively requires:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising instructions, which when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus
Similar to Claim 1, these structural requirements for Claim 25 are taught in Fig. 5 and paragraph 0080 of Chen.
As to Claim 2 and 14:
Chen teaches:
Determining the respective time domain metric for the plurality of user equipment
Paragraph 0023 of Chen describes scheduling a UE, and paragraph 0055 of Chen clarifies that the PFS algorithm schedules “M UEs” for transmission.
Claim 14 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of a method claim.
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.
Claim(s) 7-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0312432 A1) in view of Dateki et al. (US 2018/0013470 A1, hereinafter “Dateki”).
As to Claim 7 and 19:
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
Select one of the plurality of user equipment to provide a reference against which one or more other user equipment of the plurality of user equipment are compared
However, Dateki does describe a method for grouping UEs into transmission groups using a proportional fair metric.
Specifically, Dateki teaches:
Select one of the plurality of user equipment to provide a reference against which one or more other user equipment of the plurality of user equipment are compared
(“[T]he reference UE selecting unit 281 may also obtain, for example, Proportional Fair (PF) metric from the channel state information output from the reception processing unit 270 and may also select the user terminal 120 having the maximum PF metric as the reference UE” (Dateki, 0055).
Here, “select the user terminal” maps to “select one of the plurality of user equipment”,
“as the reference UE” maps to “to provide a reference against which one or more of the other user equipment of the plurality of user equipment are compared”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dateki’s practice of using the UE in a group with the largest PF metric as a reference UE. Selecting the largest PF score as a reference can help normalize the other UEs’ scores for comparisons.
Claim 19 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 8:
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
Selecting a user equipment of the plurality of user equipment with a largest proportional fair metric to provide the reference
However, Dateki does teach:
Selecting a user equipment of the plurality of user equipment with a largest proportional fair metric to provide the reference
Dateki describes “select[ing] the user terminal 120 having the maximum PF metric as the reference UE” (Dateki, 0055).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dateki’s practice of using the UE in a group with the largest PF metric as a reference UE. Selecting the largest PF score as a reference can help normalize the other UEs’ scores for comparisons.
As to Claim 9:
Chen teaches:
A quality of service weight
(“Fig. 4 graphs an example of weight functions with delay-based plus channel quality scheduling strategy for two different QoS requirements” (Chen, 0037).
Here, “weight functions” for “QoS requirements” map to “a quality of service weight”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
Compare a first value defined by ... the proportional fair metric of the user equipment providing the reference to a respective value defined by ... a proportional fair metric of a respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment
However, Dateki does teach:
Compare a first value defined by ... the proportional fair metric of the user equipment providing the reference to a respective value defined by ... a proportional fair metric of a respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment
Paragraph 0055 of Dateki describes selecting a reference UE using a “maximum PF metric”, clearly demonstrating that a comparison occurs.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dateki’s practice of using the UE in a group with the largest PF metric as a reference UE. Selecting the largest PF score as a reference can help normalize the other UEs’ scores for comparisons.
As to Claim 10:
Chen teaches:
Select a respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment to be scheduled when that respective user equipment, when not selected, is estimated to have a better time domain metric than that of the user equipment
Chen states that “the network node gives scheduling priority to the wireless device with the highest scheduling weight” (Chen, 0116).
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
The user equipment that is providing the reference
However, Dateki does teach:
The user equipment that is providing the reference
Paragraph 0055 of Dateki describes selecting a reference UE.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dateki’s practice of using the UE in a group with the largest PF metric as a reference UE. Selecting the largest PF score as a reference can help normalize the other UEs’ scores for comparisons.
As to Claim 11:
Chen teaches:
Select a respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment to be scheduled when that respective user equipment, when not selected, would have a better time domain metric than an average time domain metric of the selected user equipment of the plurality of user equipment
Chen states that “the network node gives scheduling priority to the wireless device with the highest scheduling weight” (Chen, 0116). Moreover, paragraphs 0004-0005 of Chen further clarify that the proportional fair scheduling is based on “Rav”, the “average data rate for the user” (Chen, 0004).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0312432 A1) in view of Channagire et al. (non-patent literature entitled “Performance Analysis of Long Term Evolution (LTE) Medium Access Control (MAC) Scheduler” cited in the IDS filed on 01/09/2024).
As to Claim 12:
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
Determining a number of scheduling tokens for each of the user equipment which are to be scheduled in the scheduling round based on the respective time domain metric for the respective user equipment and the time domain metrics of all the user equipment which are to be scheduled in the scheduling round
However, Channagire does describe a scheduling algorithm that uses tokens.
Specifically, Channagire teaches:
Determining a number of scheduling tokens for each of the user equipment which are to be scheduled in the scheduling round based on the respective time domain metric for the respective user equipment and the time domain metrics of all the user equipment which are to be scheduled in the scheduling round
Page 1019 of Channagire states: “The metric used in TBFQ, the traffic flow of a generic UE I = 1, ..., N is defined by ...
E
i
: the number of tokens borrowed from/given to the token bank” (Channagire, p. 1019).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the token bank described in Channagire into Chen’s method for scheduling UEs for transmission based on QoS. Tokens provide an easy way to record
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondo et al. (US 2016/0316471 A1) describes the proportional fair algorithm based on average and instantaneous throughput and all of a UE’s bearers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477