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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 2021/0068126) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2015/0282086).
Regarding Claim 1, Lou teaches a data network uplink scheduling method, comprising:
determining a maximum data volume of an uplink data packet to be sent; and
applying, according to a resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume, for an uplink resource for the uplink data packet to be sent ([0092] MDBV: The MDBV indicates a maximum service data volume of a service that needs to be served by an access network (Radio Access Network, RAN) device in a time window of the PDB. The time window of the PDB may be a time window used in an access network part. The MDBV may be used for downlink data transmission and/or uplink data transmission; [0093] Service data: The service data may be a packet obtained by a MAC entity of the terminal device from an upper layer, or a packet transmitted by using an air interface, for example, may be data of the GBR service, or data of the delay critical GBR service; [0108] 210. A terminal device obtains a first parameter, where the first parameter is used to indicate a maximum service data volume that needs to be provided by an access network device for a first service in a first time length; [0109] The first parameter may be the foregoing MDBV; [0113] 220. The terminal device determines, based on the maximum service data volume, a resource that is of a MAC PDU and that is occupied by buffered data of the first service; [0118] the terminal device determines, based on the maximum service data volume, the resource that is of the MAC PDU and that is occupied by the buffered data of the first service may include that in a process in which the terminal device allocates the resource of the MAC PDU to the data of the first service, a data volume of the data that is of the first service and that is carried in the MAC PDU cannot exceed the foregoing maximum service data volume).
However, Lou does not teach an uplink data packet among uplink data packets to be sent by a target application program.
In an analogous art, Gupta teaches an uplink data packet among uplink data packets to be sent by a target application program ([0074] generate the plurality of data packets based on at least one request from an application associated with the UE; [0075] the plurality of data packets are generated at a transmission control protocol of the internet protocol (“TCP/IP”) stack of the UE based on one or more requests from an application layer of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta’s method with Lou’s method so that uplink transmission request by the applications associated with the UE can be fulfilled, and user experience can be improved.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 1, in addition to the claimed electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory storing a program or an instruction ([0228] A terminal 800 shown in FIG. 8 may include a memory 810, a processor 820, an input/output interface 830, and a transceiver 840. ... The memory 810 is configured to store an instruction. The processor 820 is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory 820, to control the input/output interface).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 1, in addition to the claimed non-transitory readable storage medium storing a program or an instruction, when executed by a processor ([0228] A terminal 800 shown in FIG. 8 may include a memory 810, a processor 820, an input/output interface 830, and a transceiver 840. ... The processor 820 is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory 820, to control the input/output interface; [0231] The memory 810 may include a read-only memory and a random access memory, and provide an instruction and data to the processor 820. A part of the processor 820 may further include a non-volatile random access memory).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Lou and Gupta, specifically Lou teaches a chip, comprising a processor and a communication interface, wherein the communication interface is coupled to the processor, and the processor is configured to run a program or an instruction, so that steps of the data network uplink scheduling method according to claim 1 are implemented ([0068] the communications apparatus includes a processor and a memory. The memory is configured to store a program or an instruction, and the processor is configured to invoke and run the program or the instruction from the memory, so that the communications apparatus performs the steps performed by the terminal device in the methods in the foregoing aspects ... the communications apparatus may further include a transceiver ... the communications apparatus may be a terminal device, or may be a part of an apparatus in a terminal device, for example, a chip system in the terminal device).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Lou and Gupta, specifically Lou teaches a computer program product, wherein the computer program product is stored in a non-volatile storage medium, and the computer program product is executed by at least one processor to implement the steps of the data network uplink scheduling method according to claim 1 ([0228] A terminal 800 shown in FIG. 8 may include a memory 810, a processor 820, an input/output interface 830, and a transceiver 840. ... The processor 820 is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory 820, to control the input/output interface; [0231] The memory 810 may include a read-only memory and a random access memory, and provide an instruction and data to the processor 820. A part of the processor 820 may further include a non-volatile random access memory).
Claims 2-3, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. in view of Gupta et al. and Yoo et al. (US 2019/0058555).
Regarding Claim 2, Lou teaches the applying, according to a resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume, for an uplink resource for the uplink data packets to be sent comprises: determining a first resource amount according to the maximum data volume of the uplink data packet among the uplink data packets to be sent ([0108] 210. A terminal device obtains a first parameter, where the first parameter is used to indicate a maximum service data volume that needs to be provided by an access network device for a first service in a first time length; [0109] The first parameter may be the foregoing MDBV; [0113] 220. The terminal device determines, based on the maximum service data volume, a resource that is of a MAC PDU and that is occupied by buffered data of the first service; [0118] the terminal device determines, based on the maximum service data volume, the resource that is of the MAC PDU and that is occupied by the buffered data of the first service may include that in a process in which the terminal device allocates the resource of the MAC PDU to the data of the first service, a data volume of the data that is of the first service and that is carried in the MAC PDU cannot exceed the foregoing maximum service data volume); and applying for a first uplink resource from the network side device for transmitting the uplink data packets to be sent ([0108] 210. A terminal device obtains a first parameter, where the first parameter is used to indicate a maximum service data volume that needs to be provided by an access network device for a first service in a first time length; [0109] The first parameter may be the foregoing MDBV; [0113] 220. The terminal device determines, based on the maximum service data volume, a resource that is of a MAC PDU and that is occupied by buffered data of the first service; [0118] the terminal device determines, based on the maximum service data volume, the resource that is of the MAC PDU and that is occupied by the buffered data of the first service may include that in a process in which the terminal device allocates the resource of the MAC PDU to the data of the first service, a data volume of the data that is of the first service and that is carried in the MAC PDU cannot exceed the foregoing maximum service data volume).
However, the combination of Lou and Gupta does not teach determining a redundant resource amount according to the resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume; wherein a resource amount of the first uplink resource is the sum of the first resource amount and the redundant resource amount.
In an analogous art, Yoo teaches determining a redundant resource amount according to the resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume ([0094] I f the terminal should further transmit additional uplink data as well as ARQ/TCP ACK, the terminal may specify an amount of required resources in addition to resources reserved for BSR information and transmit information on the amount of resources to the BS, and thus further acquire uplink resources without an additional RACH procedure); wherein a resource amount of the first uplink resource is the sum of the first resource amount and the redundant resource amount ([0094] If the terminal should further transmit additional uplink data as well as ARQ/TCP ACK, the terminal may specify an amount of required resources in addition to resources reserved for BSR information and transmit information on the amount of resources to the BS, and thus further acquire uplink resources without an additional RACH procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Yoo’s method with Lou’s method so that it can reduce signal overhead for resource allocation and an uplink transmission delay by allocating uplink resources without any request from a terminal according to a prediction of uplink transmission (Yoo [0015]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lou and Gupta does not teach the applying, according to a resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume, for an uplink resource for the uplink data packets to be sent comprises: determining a second resource amount according to a resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume; and applying, for each uplink data packet to be sent, for an uplink resource whose resource amount is the second resource amount from a network side device.
In an analogous art, Yoo teaches the applying, according to a resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume, for an uplink resource for the uplink data packets to be sent comprises: determining a second resource amount according to a resource amount of the uplink data packet corresponding to the maximum data volume; and applying, for each uplink data packet to be sent, for an uplink resource whose resource amount is the second resource amount from a network side device ([0094] If the terminal should further transmit additional uplink data as well as ARQ/TCP ACK, the terminal may specify an amount of required resources in addition to resources reserved for BSR information and transmit information on the amount of resources to the BS, and thus further acquire uplink resources without an additional RACH procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Yoo’s method with Lou’s method so that it can reduce signal overhead for resource allocation and an uplink transmission delay by allocating uplink resources without any request from a terminal according to a prediction of uplink transmission (Yoo [0015]).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 10-12 and 16-18 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.
Conclusion
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).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-WEN CHANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Un Cho can be reached at 571-272-7919. 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.
/YU-WEN CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights