DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0367110 A1, hereinafter “Li”) in view of Gao et al. (US 2023/0308897 A1, hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method for radio communication scheduling, comprising: providing a graphical user interface, GUI, which shows graphical representations of a time grid and a number of scheduling elements (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], The allocations 600a-d may be statically configured, for instance via a UE graphic user interface (GUI) or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) system, ¶ [0077]); receiving a user input on the GUI, wherein the user input defines scheduling information (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], The allocations 600a-d may be statically configured, for instance via a UE graphic user interface (GUI) or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) system, ¶ [0077], ¶ [0146], ¶ [0147], ¶ [0148], The first grant-less uplink transmission may be sent in accordance with the first access allocation scheme); and performing a radio communication scheduling based on the scheduling information (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], ¶ [0148], The apparatus may receive, from the at least one device, a first grant-less uplink transmission during the first dynamic access configuration time interval. The first grant-less uplink transmission may be sent in accordance with the first access allocation scheme.).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the radio communication scheduling is executable in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, wherein: in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification; and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited.
Gao teaches in a first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification (figs. 6, 7, ¶ [0081], ¶ [0082], in a case where RB Allocation Pattern input in step S28 is the pattern defined by the user, the test execution control unit 22 executes the process in step S30. ¶ [0083], In step S30, the standard conformance determination unit 22b of the test execution control unit 22 determines whether or not RB Allocation corresponding to each value of BW, SCS, and OFDM, which is currently set, is an appropriate value, with RB Allocation Pattern defined by the user, which is input in step S28 (step S30)); and in a second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited (figs. 6, 7, ¶ [0080], The user selects and inputs RB Allocation Pattern via the operation unit 26 (step S28), the test execution control unit 22 executes the process in step S32, ¶ [0081], ¶ [0082], in a case where RB Allocation Pattern input in step S28 is the pattern defined in the 3GPP standard, ¶ [0086] In step S32, the test execution control unit 22 sets a value according to each value of BW, SCS, and OFDM, which is currently set, in RB Allocation Pattern defined in the 3GPP standard, input in step S28, as RB Allocation (step S32). In other words, whether the RB allocation is appropriate is not checked in step S32. Therefore, the consistency and/or conformity checking is limited.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to execute the communication scheduling in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, where in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification, and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is limited in the system of Li to comply with 3GPP standard requirements.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches a system for radio communication scheduling, comprising: a graphical user interface, GUI, which shows graphical representations of a time grid and a number of scheduling elements (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], The allocations 600a-d may be statically configured, for instance via a UE graphic user interface (GUI) or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) system, ¶ [0077]); wherein the GUI is configured to receive a user input which defines scheduling information (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], The allocations 600a-d may be statically configured, for instance via a UE graphic user interface (GUI) or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) system, ¶ [0077], ¶ [0146], ¶ [0147], ¶ [0148], The first grant-less uplink transmission may be sent in accordance with the first access allocation scheme); and a scheduler configured to perform a radio communication scheduling based on the scheduling information (figs. 6, 7, 36, 37A, 37B, ¶ [0070], ¶ [0148], The apparatus may receive, from the at least one device, a first grant-less uplink transmission during the first dynamic access configuration time interval. The first grant-less uplink transmission may be sent in accordance with the first access allocation scheme.).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the system is operable in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, wherein: in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification by the scheduler; and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited.
Gao teaches in a first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification (figs. 6, 7, ¶ [0081], ¶ [0082], in a case where RB Allocation Pattern input in step S28 is the pattern defined by the user, the test execution control unit 22 executes the process in step S30. ¶ [0083], In step S30, the standard conformance determination unit 22b of the test execution control unit 22 determines whether or not RB Allocation corresponding to each value of BW, SCS, and OFDM, which is currently set, is an appropriate value, with RB Allocation Pattern defined by the user, which is input in step S28 (step S30)); and in a second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited (figs. 6, 7, ¶ [0080], The user selects and inputs RB Allocation Pattern via the operation unit 26 (step S28), the test execution control unit 22 executes the process in step S32, ¶ [0081], ¶ [0082], in a case where RB Allocation Pattern input in step S28 is the pattern defined in the 3GPP standard, ¶ [0086] In step S32, the test execution control unit 22 sets a value according to each value of BW, SCS, and OFDM, which is currently set, in RB Allocation Pattern defined in the 3GPP standard, input in step S28, as RB Allocation (step S32). In other words, whether the RB allocation is appropriate is not checked in step S32. Therefore, the consistency and/or conformity checking is limited.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to operate the system in a first mode and in a second operating mode, where in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification by the scheduler, and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is limited in the system of Li to comply with 3GPP standard requirements.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Li teaches in view of Gao the method of claim 1, wherein the radio communication scheduling is performed by a scheduler which is directly or indirectly controlled by an output of the GUI (Li: figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0145]-¶ [0148]).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches in view of Gao the method of claim 1, wherein the time grid comprises a plurality of time slots for at least one wireless communication cell (Li: figs. 6, 7, 12, 18, 36, 37A, ¶ [0070], ¶ [0116], ¶ [0118], ¶ [0156]).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Gao teaches he method of claim 3, wherein a number, a type, a duration and/or a pattern of the time slots is determined based on the user input (Li: figs. 6, 7, 18, 36, ¶ [0070], [0116], ¶ [0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: assigning at least some of the number of scheduling elements to respective time slots of the time grid based on the user input (Li: figs. 6, 7, 18, 36, ¶ [0070], [0116], ¶ [0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the radio communication scheduling is performed in accordance with a determined
mobile broadband standard (Li: ¶ [0151], ¶ [0153]).
Li does not explicitly teach a mobile broadband standard release version.
Examiner makes an official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to perform the scheduling in accordance with a determined mobile broadband standard release version in the system of Li in view of Gao to further improve industrial applicability.
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: outputting scheduling instructions for carrying out the radio communication scheduling in a human-readable format (Li: figs. 36, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Gao teaches he method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying a parameter of at least one scheduling element of the number of scheduling elements based on a further user input on the GUI (Li: figs. 6, 7, 36).
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Gao as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Straub et al. (US 2016/0092176 A1, hereinafter “Straub”).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 5.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein a scheduling element is assigned to a respective time slot via a drag and drop gesture on the GUI.
However, it is well known in the art to assign an element to a respective slot via a drag and drop gesture on the GUI, as evidenced by abstract and ¶ [0056] of Straub.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to assign a scheduling element to a respective time slot via a drag and drop gesture on the GUI in the system of Li in view of Gao to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
8. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Gao as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Huss et al. (US 2022/0103321 A1, hereinafter “Huss”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Li in view of Gao teaches the method of claim 5.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein, after assigning a scheduling element to a time slot of the time grid, the number of scheduling elements which are selectable for assigning to a further time slot of the time grid is restricted, wherein the restriction depends on a multiplexing pattern and/or on a ASN.1 parameter.
However, it is well known in the art to limit a number of scheduling elements depending on a mapping patter, as evidenced by figs. 4-8 of Huss.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to restrict the number of scheduling elements which are selectable for assigning to a further time slot of the time, based on a multiplexing pattern, after assigning a scheduling element to a time slot (e.g., to restrict the number DMRS elements after assigning a DMRS element to a time slot) in the system of Li in view of Gao to comply with 3GPP standard requirements.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed on February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
10. Applicant argues “…With respect to Gao, Applicant notes that Gao does appear show a test system with automatic 3GPP conformity testing and parameter adjustment, but does not mention different user modes (first/second such as basic/expert) and certainly does not mention deliberately disabling conformity tests in order to allow violations of standards…However, in the context of standards-compliant radio test systems in particular, the opposite paradigm is common: conformity is enforced or at least prominently checked because the goal is usually compliance with 3GPP specifications.
A mode that deliberately deactivates all consistency/conformity checks and allows standard violations, exemplarily in order to run targeted negative tests, therefore goes beyond what is described in the cited publications and cannot be directly derived from them. Rather, the only apparent technological teaching is derivable from Applicant's own disclosure, which, of course, cannot be properly relied upon by the Examiner to support the ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Panduit Corp. V. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 2985). Applicant notes that Gao describes, at paragraphs [0081] to [0083] (which have also been cited under paragraph 10 of the Office Action regarding claims 9 and 10), in the case that an input "defined by a user" (paragraph [0081]) is used, "step S30" (paragraph [0082]) is executed, which comprises "standard conformance determination" (paragraph [0083]). In contrast, the present application deliberately allows specification non-compliance with respect to the user input-defined scheduling information. Accordingly, Gao teaches away from the present claimed subject matter. This teaching away constitutes evidence of nonobviousness. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 6 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986), In re Marshall, 578 F.2d 301, 198 USPQ 344 (CCPA 1978)…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that during patent examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims (In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
The claims require, in part, “wherein the radio communication scheduling is executable in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, wherein: in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification; and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited.”
In this case: Li teaches a method for radio communication scheduling, comprising: providing a graphical user interface, GUI, which shows graphical representations of a time grid and a number of scheduling elements (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], The allocations 600a-d may be statically configured, for instance via a UE graphic user interface (GUI) or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) system, ¶ [0077]); receiving a user input on the GUI, wherein the user input defines scheduling information and performing a radio communication scheduling based on the scheduling information (figs. 6, 7, 36, ¶ [0070], The allocations 600a-d may be statically configured, for instance via a UE graphic user interface (GUI) or an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) system, ¶ [0077], ¶ [0146], ¶ [0147], ¶ [0148], The first grant-less uplink transmission may be sent in accordance with the first access allocation scheme).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the radio communication scheduling is executable in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, wherein: in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification; and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited.
Gao teaches in a first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification (figs. 6, 7, ¶ [0081], ¶ [0082], in a case where RB Allocation Pattern input in step S28 is the pattern defined by the user, the test execution control unit 22 executes the process in step S30. ¶ [0083], In step S30, the standard conformance determination unit 22b of the test execution control unit 22 determines whether or not RB Allocation corresponding to each value of BW, SCS, and OFDM, which is currently set, is an appropriate value, with RB Allocation Pattern defined by the user, which is input in step S28 (step S30)); and in a second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is deactivated or limited (figs. 6, 7, ¶ [0080], The user selects and inputs RB Allocation Pattern via the operation unit 26 (step S28), the test execution control unit 22 executes the process in step S32, ¶ [0081], ¶ [0082], in a case where RB Allocation Pattern input in step S28 is the pattern defined in the 3GPP standard, ¶ [0086] In step S32, the test execution control unit 22 sets a value according to each value of BW, SCS, and OFDM, which is currently set, in RB Allocation Pattern defined in the 3GPP standard, input in step S28, as RB Allocation (step S32). In other words, whether the RB allocation is appropriate is not checked in step S32. Therefore, the consistency and/or conformity checking is limited.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to execute the communication scheduling in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, where in the first operating mode, the scheduling information received via the user input is checked on a consistency and/or on a conformity with a technical specification, and in the second operating mode, the consistency and/or conformity checking is limited in the system of Li to comply with 3GPP standard requirements.
Therefore, Li in view of Gao render obvious the amended claims, as set forth above.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 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, 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights