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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 06/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding, modifying the first scheduling weights for the plurality of wireless communication devices for the slot based on whether wireless communication devices from among the plurality of wireless communication devices are affected by cross-link interference to thereby provide second scheduling weights for the plurality of wireless communication devices for the slot. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Szabo teach, “This interference takes into account how far the different UEs are located physically one from the other. The weight based scheduling scheme can select the UEs according to a weight function which includes components of all the above three factors. The first component of the weight function such as the quality of service, QoS weight”, for further clarification Szabo teach, “As shown in FIG. 3, curve 32 or the weight is increased by a constant factor C.sub.res compared to a UE for which no control commands are transmitted through the network. In the right part of FIG. 3, it is shown that the corresponding weight function decreases when the interference increases… in FIG. 3 one part of the optimization problem includes the quality of service weight of the UE, wherein the other part jointly considers the other two factors such as the UE's channel quality and the interference impact”, see para. 68-70. The examiner notes that Szabo clearly teach and shows in a graph the weight function based on the interference and other factors to recalculate the UE weight for each resource assigned as a weight based scheduling scheme from various user equipments (read as: UEs 10, 11 or 30). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Szabo to teach this concept. Thus the combination of Fu, Lenzo and Szabo still meet the scope of the limitations.
Claim Objections
In accordance with MPEP 2111.04, the claim language of claim(s) 15 suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. Although these claims involve the ‘adapting to’ clause, the above reasoning for objection remains the same.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170164386) in view of Lenzo et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO9926437), further in view of Szabo et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230345521).
Regarding claim 1 Fu disclose a method performed by a Radio Access Network, RAN, node for avoiding or mitigating cross-link interference in a Time Division Duplexing, TDD, system, the method comprising:
performing a baseline scheduling procedure for a plurality of wireless communication devices for a slot, wherein the plurality of wireless communication devices are assigned first scheduling weights during the baseline scheduling procedure that correspond to priorities of the wireless communication devices for scheduling during the slot para. 10, “determine a respective scheduling weight for the communication providing tethering and for its one or more tethered devices, and schedule the communication devices based on the determination”;
scheduling the plurality of wireless communication devices for the slot in accordance with the second scheduling weights para. 10, “determine a respective scheduling weight for the communication providing tethering and for its one or more tethered devices, and schedule the communication devices based on the determination”.
Fu does not specifically disclose, determining that the slot is a downlink slot that is preceding an uplink slot; responsive to determining that the slot is a downlink slot that is preceding an uplink slot. However, Lenzo teach, “For each active link, the allocated uplink time slot either precedes or follows the corresponding allocated downlink time slot”: see para. 36.
Fu and Lenzo does not specifically disclose, modifying the first scheduling weights for the plurality of wireless communication devices for the slot based on whether wireless communication devices from among the plurality of wireless communication devices are affected by cross-link interference to thereby provide second scheduling weights for the plurality of wireless communication devices for the slot. However, Szabo teach, “This interference takes into account how far the different UEs are located physically one from the other. The weight based scheduling scheme can select the UEs according to a weight function which includes components of all the above three factors. The first component of the weight function such as the quality of service, QoS weight”, see para. 66-67.
Fu, Lenzo and Szabo are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters to manage interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lenzo and Szabo in the system of Fu so the system can dynamically modify tis parameter related to changes on the quality of the communication channel and the interference produced by the terminals in the network. The motivation for doing so would have been to adapt the configuration of the assigned resources in order to mitigate the interference produced by terminals in the network.
Regarding claim 2 Fu and Lenzo does not specifically disclose, wherein the second scheduling weights are such that wireless communication devices that are affected by cross-link interference are not scheduled in the slot, which is a downlink slot that is preceding an uplink slot. However, Szabo teach “The advantage of the above-discussed solution is that the radio resource allocation can be adjusted on resource block level. This means that as much radio resources are used as really needed for each UE, in contrast to a dedicated allocation”, see para. 71.
Fu, Lenzo and Szabo are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters to manage interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Szabo in the system of Fu and Lenzo to be able to reallocate the radio resource for terminals being affected by interference. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the communication by assigning resources to terminals in the network with low levels of interference.
Regarding claim 14 Fu and Lenzo does not specifically disclose, wherein determining the set of wireless communication devices that are affected by cross-link interference comprises determining the set of wireless communication devices that are affected by cross-link interference based on, for each wireless communication device in the plurality of wireless communication devices para. 66, “A third factor can be the UE's interference impact on each other. This interference takes into account how far the different UEs are located physically one from the other. The weight based scheduling scheme can select the UEs according to a weight function which includes components of all the above three factors”:
one or more channel related statistics when the wireless communication device is assigned a downlink slot preceding an uplink slot; and one or more channel related statistics when the wireless communication device is assigned a downlink slot not preceding an uplink slot para. 66, “Selection of the uplink and downlink time slots for each link can be based, for example, on a channel selection process which determines the best link arrangement. Determination of the best link arrangement can in tarn be based, for example, on an assessment of adjacent-channel and/or co-channel interference existing at the time of call setup”.
Fu, Lenzo and Szabo are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters to manage interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Szabo in the system of Fu and Lenzo to be able to determine the quality of the communication channel based on several parameters to schedule the available resources accordingly. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the communication by assigning resources to terminals in the network with low levels of interference.
Claim 15 recites a system corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18 the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 and 19 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
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights