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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, variables “N”, “X” and “Y”. The claim fails to define what these variable are. Are they numeric value? If so, what kind of number” (integer, natura number, etc.). When do they start or end” (e.g., 0, 1, etc.). Thus, claim is indefinite. Claims 8 and 15 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 10 recites, “for UL scheduling” (last line). It is suggested to replace it with “for the UL scheduling” for more clarity.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also objected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 8, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 8-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, “the L1 UL processing overlapping with the UL processing for the subframe N-X” (line 2). It is unclear what “the UL processing” refers to since there lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear in what manner “the UL processing” is different from “the L1 UL processing”. Claims 11 and 17 are rejected at least based on a similar rational applied to claim 4. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 preamble recites, “A scheduler for optimizing use of Distributed Unit (DU) resources in an environment of pooling of carriers, wherein the scheduler is configured to: “ (lines 1-2) and thus, it clear that in view of the preamble of the claim is a “Machine: category claim1. However, claim 8 body recites the actions/steps, “enable …”, “perform the DL scheduling … ”, “perform the UL scheduling …”; and “obtain …”, without any structure required by the machine claim, which create confusion when directed infringement occurs. Thus, the claim is indefinite. See IPXL v. Amazon, 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claims 9-14 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 8, as set forth above.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarino et al (US Publication No. 2017/0265171 A1) in view of Wong et al (US Publication No. 2018/0242320 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alvarino discloses, a method for optimizing use of Distributed Unit (DU) resources in an environment of pooling of carriers [FIGS. 8-9; their related descriptions; ¶0100, distributed unit (DU) 806 hosting one or more TRPs; further see ¶0101-0108, scheduling for DL and UL subframes; further see ¶0070, each subframe includes (scheduled) time frequency resources/resource blocks each covering 12 subcarriers], comprising:
performing DL scheduling by the DL scheduler [¶0108, “downlink data in a PDSCH may be scheduled” requiring the claimed DL scheduler] for subframe N using X subframe look ahead at subframe N-X [¶0108, scheduling may be cross-subframe for both uplink and downlink. For example, downlink data in a PDSCH may be scheduled for two subframes after the scheduling information (i.e., N+2); note that the DL scheduling for PDSCH downlink data for subframe N+2 is performed using 2 subframe look ahead at subframe N, where the subframe N+2 is a target subframe for which the DL scheduling to be performed and DL data is transmitted, and N subframe is a subframe at which the DL scheduling is performed];
performing UL scheduling by the UL scheduler [¶0108, “uplink data in a PUSCH may be scheduled” requiring the claimed UL scheduler] for the subframe N using Y subframe look ahead at subframe N-Y [¶0108, scheduling may be cross-subframe for both uplink and downlink. For example, uplink data in a PUSCH may be scheduled for four subframes after the scheduling information (i.e., N+4); note that the UL scheduling for PUSCH uplink data for subframe N+4 is performed using 4 subframe look ahead at subframe N, where the subframe N+4 is a target subframe for which the UL scheduling to be performed and UL data is transmitted, and N subframe is a subframe at which the UL scheduling is performed].
Although Alvarino discloses, “performing DL scheduling by the DL scheduler for subframe N using X subframe look ahead at subframe N-X; performing UL scheduling by the UL scheduler for the subframe N using Y subframe look ahead at subframe N-Y” as set forth above, Alvarino does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), enabling passing of subframe scheduling information from an uplink (UL) scheduler to a downlink (DL) scheduler; and obtaining a priori UL information about the subframe N-Y previously determined by the UL scheduler.
However, Wong discloses, enabling passing of subframe scheduling information from an uplink (UL) scheduler to a downlink (DL) scheduler [¶0059, base station allocates resources based on resources for the PDSCH transmission that ack signal transmission whose is known to the base station based on the previous allocation of UL resources; which requires the previous allocation of UL resources (i.e., subframe scheduling information from an UL scheduler) being passed for resource allocations on the PDSCH transmission (i.e., DL scheduler)]; and obtaining a priori UL information about the subframe N-Y previously determined by the UL scheduler [¶0059, base station allocates resources based on resources for the PDSCH transmission that ack signal transmission whose is known to the base station based on the previous allocation of UL resources; further see “this would be at the sub-frame n+k with k=4 (see discussion above) with n being the last sub-frame of the uplink transmission”; which requires the base station obtaining the previous allocation of UL resources about the subframe (n) previously determined].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Alvarino with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Wong to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Wong into the system of Alvarino would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to allocate resources more efficiently and avoid under/over scheduling, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Alvarino in view of Wong discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Alvarino discloses, further comprising performing L1 UL processing over the subframe N [¶0108, uplink data in a PUSCH (i.e., Layer 1 UL processing) may be scheduled for four subframes after the scheduling information (i.e., N+4); note that the subframe (i.e., claimed subframe N) (four subframes after the scheduling information) in which the PUSCH is to be transmitted], the L1 UL processing overlapping with the UL processing for the subframe N-X [¶0108, uplink data in a PUSCH (i.e., Layer 1 UL processing) may be scheduled for four subframes after the scheduling information (i.e., N+4); note that in order to transmit the PUSCH at the subframe (i.e., claimed subframe N) (4 subframes after the scheduling information), the scheduling/UL scheduling for the scheduling information at the subframe (i.e., claimed subframe N-X) overlap with the PUSCH transmission].
Regarding claim 8, Alvarino discloses, a scheduler for optimizing use of Distributed Unit (DU) resources in an environment of pooling of carriers [FIGS. 8-9; their related descriptions; ¶0100, distributed unit (DU) 806 hosting one or more TRPs; further see ¶0101-0108, scheduling for DL and UL subframes; further see ¶0070, each subframe includes (scheduled) time frequency resources/resource blocks each covering 12 subcarriers].
Since claim 8 recites similar features without additional features, claim 8 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Alvarino discloses, a non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a processor causes the processor to perform operations [¶0020-0021, computer-readable medium storing computer executable code; note that every network device has at least one memory storing computer executable code that, when is executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform action(s)].
Since claim 15 recites similar features without additional features, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarino et al (US Publication No. 2017/0265171 A1) in view of Wong et al (US Publication No. 2018/0242320 A1) and further in view of Zheng et al (US Publication No. 2019/0082452 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Alvarino in view of Wong discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Alvarino discloses, the performing the DL scheduling by the DL scheduler for the subframe N using 2 subframe look ahead at subframe N-2[[¶0108, scheduling may be cross-subframe for both uplink and downlink. For example, downlink data in a PDSCH may be scheduled for two subframes after the scheduling information (i.e., N+2); note that X is 2], Alvarino in view of Wong does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zheng discloses, performing the UL scheduling by the UL scheduler for the subframe N using 6 subframe look ahead at subframe N-6 [¶0104, referring to a schematic diagram of a relationship between subframes in multi-subframe scheduling in FIG. 3, the scheduling information such as the UL grant is sent in the downlink subframe n. The subframe n+4, a subframe n+5, a subframe n+6, and a subframe n+7 are uplink subframes scheduled by the downlink subframe n (that is, M=4); requiring scheduling UL scheduling (UL grant) 6 subframes (n) before the subframe (n+6) in which the UL transmission is performed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of frames (“Y”) looked ahead to perform UL scheduling in the system of Alvarino in view of Wong to be “6” as taught by Zheng because such a modification would have involved the mere “obvious to try” of modifying the number of frames considering a traffic latency, as taught by Zheng since such a modification would present no new or unexpected results in indicating the UL scheduling information.
Regarding claims 3, claim 32 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarino et al (US Publication No. 2017/0265171 A1) in view of Wong et al (US Publication No. 2018/0242320 A1) and further in view of Park et al (US Publication No. 2020/0053666 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Alvarino in view of Wong discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Alvarino in view of Wong does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Park discloses, wherein the obtaining the a priori UL information about the subframe N-Y previously determined by the UL scheduler includes obtaining scheduled PRB knowledge previously determined by the DL scheduler [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0069, receiving the first UL configuration 710 from the BS; further see “the UL configuration 710 indicates a number of RBs, a MCS, and/or a waveform type assigned to the UE for transmission in the long UL burst portion 214”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Park in the system of Alvarino in view of Wong in order to cause the system to be able to adaptively adjust resource allocations based on scheduled resource knowledge previously determined [e.g., ¶0005 of Park].
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harada et al (US Publication No. 2018/0279366 A1) [FIG. 4; ¶0068-0069]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 In view of the spec. ¶0056 and 0064, the scheduler is part of the processor.
2 For the sake of examination purpose, the examiner interprets the claim as “6”is selected as “Y”.