DETAILED ACTION
This office action response the amendment application on 01/07/2026.
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Notice of 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
This is in response to the amendments filed on 07 January, 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 17 are were objected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “configured to” coupled with functional language “interface configured to; and scheduling module configured to”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The objected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being directed to non-structural term subject matter has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s response.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 and 17 have been carefully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molisch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210058114), (“D1”, hereinafter), in view of BHATTACHARJEE et al. ((U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150245250), (“D2”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 1, D1 discloses a radio node ([see, [0008], and Fig. 1, a wireless network]) comprising:
an interface configured to communicate wirelessly with user equipment ([see, [0055], and Fig. 1, wireless access system 100 with each user device]); and
a control circuit coupled to the interface and configured to:
evaluate a number of active user equipment ([see, [0008, 0004, 0061, 0222], determining a plurality of user devices based on a transmission metric for each user device dynamic bandwidth scheduler. Wherein Dynamic (defined as adaptive to “active UEs”)]); and
throttle scheduling of carrier channels based on the number of active user equipment by scheduling a subset of the carrier channels ([see, [0004-0005, 0063], scheduling a plurality of user devices in a wireless communication system; and determining a subset of user devices by selecting at most one user device from each of the plurality of sets, and scheduling simultaneous transmissions by each of the subset of user devices based on a scheduling algorithm, and wherein the schedule comprises an assignment of each of the plurality of users to each of the plurality of beams in one or more of the set of time-frequency resources (corresponding to carrier channels)]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: throttle scheduling of carrier channels.
However, D2 discloses throttle scheduling of carrier channels ([see, [0031], and Fig. 2, the eNB (the radio node) determines the carrier aggregation state of the UE, throttling carrier aggregation activation, and for carrier aggregation to be scheduled for the UE]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide throttling for activation or deactivation of component carriers results improved power conservation and transmission efficiency (D2, [0057]]).
As per Claim 3, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 1, and D1 further disclose wherein the control circuit comprises a scheduling module configured to schedule carrier channels based on throttling and user equipment requests ([see, [0224, 0379], wherein the DL Scheduler based on the full request that schedule/arrange UEs according to SINR, and transmit control channel information to the UE]).
As per Claim 8, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 1, and D1 further discloses wherein the control circuit configured to evaluate the number of active user equipment is configured to determine that the user equipment is active when there are data transmissions in a downlink direction to the user equipment ([see, [0008, 0061,0184, 0222], determining a plurality of user devices based on a transmission metric for each user device dynamic bandwidth scheduler. Wherein dynamic bandwidth allocation may be used to deliver traffic for multiple users’ devices, wherein Dynamic (defined as adaptive to “active UEs”)]).
As per Claim 9, D1 discloses a method of adjusting carrier channels ([see, [0008], and Fig. 1, a wireless network]) comprising:
determining a number of active user equipment associated with a radio node ([see, [0008, 0004, 0061, 0222], determining a plurality of user devices based on a transmission metric for each user device dynamic bandwidth scheduler. Wherein Dynamic (defined as adaptive to “active UEs”)]); and
throttling scheduling of carrier channels based on the number of active user equipment by scheduling a subset of the carrier channels ([see, [0004-0005, 0063], scheduling a plurality of user devices in a wireless communication system; and determining a subset of user devices by selecting at most one user device from each of the plurality of sets, and scheduling simultaneous transmissions by each of the subset of user devices based on a scheduling algorithm, and wherein the schedule comprises an assignment of each of the plurality of users to each of the plurality of beams in one or more of the set of time-frequency resources (corresponding to carrier channels)]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: throttle scheduling of carrier channels.
However, D2 discloses throttle scheduling of carrier channels ([see, [0031], and Fig. 2, the eNB (the radio node) determines the carrier aggregation state of the UE, throttling carrier aggregation activation, and for carrier aggregation to be scheduled for the UE]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide throttling for activation or deactivation of component carriers results improved power conservation and transmission efficiency (D2, [0057]]).
As per Claim 10, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 9, and D1 further discloses wherein determining the number of active user equipment comprises evaluating whether an uplink request or downlink data transmission is present ([see, [0008, 0061,0184, 0222], determining a plurality of user devices based on downlink data transmission, such as transmission metric for each user device dynamic bandwidth scheduler. Wherein dynamic bandwidth allocation may be used to deliver traffic for multiple users’ devices, wherein Dynamic (defined as adaptive to “active UEs”)]).
As per Claim 15, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 14, and D1 further discloses wherein the user equipment threshold comprises the threshold ([see, [0247-0248], scheduler assign time-frequency grids to UEs according to a greedy policy with thresholding]).
As per Claim 17, D1 discloses a wireless communication system ([see, [0008], and Fig. 1, a wireless network]) comprising:
a radio node ([see, [0008], and Fig. 1, a wireless network]) comprising:
an interface configured to communicate wirelessly with user equipment ([see, [0055], and Fig. 1, wireless access system 100 with each user device]); and
a control circuit coupled to the interface and configured to:
evaluate a number of active user equipment ([see, [0008, 0004, 0061, 0222], determining a plurality of user devices based on a transmission metric for each user device dynamic bandwidth scheduler. Wherein Dynamic (defined as adaptive to “active UEs”)]); and
throttle scheduling of carrier channels based on the number of active user equipment by scheduling a subset of the carrier channels ([see, [0004-0005, 0063], scheduling a plurality of user devices in a wireless communication system; and determining a subset of user devices by selecting at most one user device from each of the plurality of sets, and scheduling simultaneous transmissions by each of the subset of user devices based on a scheduling algorithm, and wherein the schedule comprises an assignment of each of the plurality of users to each of the plurality of beams in one or more of the set of time-frequency resources (corresponding to carrier channels)]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: throttle scheduling of carrier channels.
However, D2 discloses throttle scheduling of carrier channels ([see, [0031], and Fig. 2, the eNB (the radio node) determines the carrier aggregation state of the UE, throttling carrier aggregation activation, and for carrier aggregation to be scheduled for the UE]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide throttling for activation or deactivation of component carriers results improved power conservation and transmission efficiency (D2, [0057]]).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, and further in view of PRASAD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200205174 A1), (“D3”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 2, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 1, and D1 further discloses wherein the control circuit configured to evaluate the number of active user equipment ([see, [0008, 0061, 0222], determining a plurality of user devices based on a transmission metric for each user device dynamic bandwidth scheduler. Wherein Dynamic (defined as adaptive to “active UEs”)]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: is configured to determine that the user equipment is active when there is an uplink scheduling request from the user equipment.
However, D3 discloses is configured to determine that the user equipment is active when there is an uplink scheduling request from the user equipment ([see, [0087, 0091], the requested information may be utilized also in the scheduling according to the second scheduling mechanism]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request results improved signal strength (i.e. signal to noise ratio) and limiting the interference within the network (D3, [0032]).
As per Claim 4, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 3, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the scheduling module is configured to determine if a number of active user equipment has changed.
However, D3 discloses wherein the scheduling module is configured to determine if a number of active user equipment has changed ([see, [0053-0054, 0067], determine the number of the plurality of terminal devices served by the access node based on the amount of throttling applied to each radio bearer equally may depend at least on the amount of congestion).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request and carrier channels schedule results improved signal strength (i.e. signal to noise ratio) and limiting the interference within the network (D3, [0032]).
As per Claim 7, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 1, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the radio node comprises a radio unit (RU) and a distributed unit (DU) and the DU comprises the control circuit.
However, D3 discloses wherein the radio node comprises a radio unit (RU) and a distributed unit (DU) and the DU comprises the control circuit ([see, [0026], enables RAN real time functions being carried out at the RAN side (in a distributed unit, DU 104) and non-real time functions being carried out in a centralized manner (in a centralized unit, CU 108)).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request and carrier channels schedule results improved signal strength (i.e. signal to noise ratio) and limiting the interference within the network (D3, [0032]).
As per Claim 12, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 11, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein reducing carrier channel throttling comprises resuming scheduling a carrier channel.
However, D3 discloses wherein reducing carrier channel throttling comprises resuming scheduling a carrier channel ([see, [0053-0054], the amount of throttling (that is, the throttling rate) applied to each radio bearer equally may depend at least on the amount of congestion and the number of the plurality of terminal devices served by the access node, and the scheduling mechanism limit or regulate the data rate associated with the one or more radio bearers equally so as to maximize a system throughput associated with the access node]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request and carrier channels schedule results improved signal strength (i.e. signal to noise ratio) and limiting the interference within the network (D3, [0032]).
As per Claim 13, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 9, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein throttling comprises using a scheduling module to omit scheduling of one or more carrier channels.
However, D3 discloses wherein throttling comprises using a scheduling module to omit scheduling of one or more carrier channels ([see, [0053-0054], the scheduling mechanism limit or regulate the data rate associated with the one or more radio bearers’ channel equally so as to maximize a system throughput associated with the access node]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request and carrier channels schedule results improved signal strength (i.e. signal to noise ratio) and limiting the interference within the network (D3, [0032]).
Claims 5-6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, and further in view of KRISHNAMOORTHY et al. ((U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0090280), (“D4”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 5, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 3, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the scheduling module is configured to reduce throttling carrier channel scheduling when the number of active user equipment falls below a threshold.
However, D4 discloses wherein the scheduling module is configured to reduce throttling carrier channel scheduling when the number of active user equipment falls below a threshold ([see, [0030, 0085], wherein at least one scheduling request associated with the first subscription, the tune-away (time spent) time interval not exceeding the threshold ]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request throttling results improve battery life on a mobile device by intelligently managing its reconnection process after a period of being disconnected (D4, [0004]]).
As per Claim 6, D1 and D2 disclose the radio node of claim 1, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the control circuit is configured to increase throttling the carrier channel scheduling when the number of active user equipment exceeds a threshold.
However, D4 discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to increase throttling the carrier channel scheduling when the number of active user equipment exceeds a threshold ([see, [0030, 0085], wherein scheduling determining that the tune-away time interval exceeds the threshold, the throttled count may be decreased as the length of the tune-away time interval increases]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request throttling results improve battery life on a mobile device by intelligently managing its reconnection process after a period of being disconnected (D4, [0004]]).
As per Claim 11, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 9, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: further comprising reducing carrier channel throttling when the number of active equipment falls below the threshold.
However, D4 discloses further comprising reducing carrier channel throttling when the number of active equipment falls below the threshold ([see, [0030, 0085], wherein at least one scheduling request associated with the first subscription, the tune-away (time spent) time interval not exceeding the threshold]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request throttling results improve battery life on a mobile device by intelligently managing its reconnection process after a period of being disconnected (D4, [0004]]).
As per Claim 16, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 9, and D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: further comprising applying a greater throttle to the carrier channel scheduling when the user equipment exceeds a second threshold.
However, D4 discloses further comprising applying a greater throttle to the carrier channel scheduling when the user equipment exceeds a second threshold ([see, [0030, 0085], wherein scheduling determining that the tune-away time interval exceeds the threshold, the throttled count may be decreased as the length of the tune-away time interval increases]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide scheduling request throttling results improve battery life on a mobile device by intelligently managing its reconnection process after a period of being disconnected (D4, [0004]]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, and father in view of Prakash et al. ((U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080316969), (“D5”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 14, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 9, D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: further comprising assigning a carrier channel number and a user equipment threshold to a pair.
However, D5 discloses further comprising assigning a carrier channel number and a user equipment threshold to a pair ([see, [0007], assigned to a carrier among multiple carriers having different transmit power levels, and the assigned carrier and may compare the received signal strength against the switch threshold]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D5. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide assigned carrier results improve capacity, the overall coverage area of a base station may be partitioned into multiple (e.g., three) smaller areas (D5, [0018]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU D BELETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm, Alt. Friday, and EDT.
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, JEONG, MOO R. can be reached on (571) 272-9617. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERHANU D BELETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/WUTCHUNG CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418