The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed February 12, 2026, claims 1, 5, 7, 19, 23 and 25 are amended, claims 3, 4, 6, 21, 22, and 24 are cancelled, claim 37 is new and claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 19-20, 23, 25-28, and 37 are currently pending for examination.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 applicant’s arguments, see page 7 paragraphs 4 - page 9, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20, and 25-28 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Hence a new ground of rejection is further made in view of Ren et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015/0334733). A second new ground of rejection is also presented in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0274097).
Regarding amended claims 1, and 19, the applicant argued that, see page 14 lines 15-22, “…The cited art fails to disclose or suggest determining allocation priorities based on both an average scheduled rate and an expected scheduled rate for the same device, let alone using these two metrics together in the same priority determination: Comsa (US 2020/03966694) does not teach or suggest determining allocation priorities based on both an average scheduled rate and an expected scheduled rate, as now recited in amended Claim 1. Comsa's focus is on power control for regulatory compliance, not on scheduling optimization using historical and predictive performance metrics. Combining Comsa's RF constraint management with the claimed dual-metric priority calculation would require a fundamental change in design philosophy and additional computational steps, which the prior art does not contemplate. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Comsa (or any cited reference) to make such a combination.
Chaudhuri (US Patent No.: 9,204,332) discloses using an average scheduled rate as a performance metric but does not teach or suggest incorporating an expected scheduled rate or any predictive metric for priority determination.
Walton et al. (US 2006/0121946) discloses updating an expected scheduled rate on a TTI basis but does not combine this with an average scheduled rate or use both metrics jointly for resource allocation.
Sampath (US 2013/0310097) addresses RF exposure constraints and scheduling based on power limitations, which is a different technical domain and does not involve scheduled rate-based priority determination.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above. See section 4 below.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, combining the system as taught by Walton, in the system of Comsa, so as to efficiently schedule data transmission on the downlink and uplink. These scheduling schemes may be designed to optimize transmissions (e.g., maximize throughput) for single or multiple terminals in a manner to meet various constraints and requirements (e.g., demand requirements, loading, fairness criteria, data rate capabilities, channel conditions, and so on). Certain properties of the system (e.g., multi-user diversity, receiver processing techniques, and so on) may also be exploited to provide improved performance, see Walton, paragraphs 10-14. The Examiner further states, to combine the system as taught by Chaudhuri, in the system of Comsa and Walton, so as to determine how, when, and whether to grant access to a given user to connect with the network and begin communication, see Chaudhuri, paragraphs 21-22.
Regarding amended claims 1 and 19, Comsa teaches to determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1A, para. 0020, at least one of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, see para. 0009, priority rules applicable to transmission using multiple numerologies, beams, unintended receivers, multiple configured maximum total powers, each of which correspond to multi devices, see also para. 0100, 0112, 0141, 0200), each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission (see para. 0081, concurrent transmissions leads to one or more determinations about prioritization in power allocation, for example, for different cases on each carrier / a current transmission, across carriers, across multiplexed numerologies, and/or across services (e.g., URLLC and/or eMBB) / priority for each of the plurality of wireless devices on an expected scheduled rate, see para. 0008-0009, a EIRP threshold value, and at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, see also para. 0056, 0127, 0129, 0139-0141); and allocate resources to at least one of the plurality of wireless devices based at least on the respective allocation priorities associated with the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0009, 0073, 0081-0086, 0112-0115, 0132-0133, 0200, the network node configures the WTRU to perform uplink power control based on one or more of the following: power allocation rules, priorities / respective allocation priorities, dependency on numerology, multiplexed numerologies, interference (e.g., victim nodes), beamforming, and/or uplink power control related signaling, see also para.0007-0009, 0180-0181), the Examiner further states that Walton teaches wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, (see para. 413, when the scheduling scheme requires other system and terminal metrics to be maintained (e.g. the average data rate over the past K transmission intervals, latency for data transmission / an expected scheduled rate), then these metrics are updated, at step 930, the terminal metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the individual terminals, and the scheduling performed for each transmission interval/ a current transmission time interval, TTI, see also Fig.8A, para. 0360-0368, a process to schedule terminals for data transmission based on priority based on an expected scheduled rate, Fig.9C para. 0427-0431 and 10 B, para. 0456-0459, a process to schedule a set of N.sub.T highest priority terminals for data transmission on the downlink and uplink, respectively based on an expected scheduled rate, see also para. 0339-0343, terminals are scheduled for data transmission and assigned channels based on their priorities such that higher priority terminals are generally served before lower priority terminals and the terminals are prioritized based on their average throughput, a "score" is maintained for each active terminal to be scheduled for data transmission, see also para. 0351-0352, the scheduler use the scores to prioritize terminals for scheduling and channel assignment, clearly the respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate / their average throughput, of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI), and the Examiner further states that Chaudhuri teaches wherein at least one performance metric includes an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.5A-D, 6A-D, para. 28, 30, the packet scheduler module 240 calculates eNB 11 specific parameters such as Average Packet Drop Rate (PDR) per QCI, Average Scheduling Delay per QCI, Average Throughput per QC in order to schedule a UE 14-1-14-3/ a respective wireless device, see also para. 55, 60-61).
The applicant further argues that “Thus, the claimed invention introduces a novel approach that integrates historical performance (average scheduled rate) and predictive performance (expected scheduled rate) into a unified priority calculation.” While the Examiner cites Comsa and Sampath for RFEMF-related constraints, these references do not teach or suggest combining such constraints with the dual-metric priority calculation of Claim 1. The claimed combination addresses two distinct technical challenges, fair scheduling and regulatory compliance, in a unified framework, which is not contemplated by the prior arts. This dual-metric approach provides significant technical benefits. By considering both past performance and future expectations, the claimed invention enables fair and efficient resource allocation, resulting in improved Quality of Service (QoS) stability and optimized throughput. These advantages are not achievable through the techniques disclosed in the cited references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fair scheduling and regulatory compliance, in a unified framework, enables fair and efficient resource allocation, resulting in improved Quality of Service (QoS) stability and optimized throughput) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner Note: The specification provided no support for “enables fair and efficient resource allocation, resulting in improved Quality of Service (QoS) stability and optimized throughput”. The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation, since, the specification fails to provide antecedent for “an expected scheduled rate” and “an average scheduled rate”, the specification only repeats the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, " ... determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices, each respective allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices and an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI”. Neither the claim nor the specification further describe, “… determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices, each respective allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices and an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI”. Paragraphs 13 of instant application disclose, “According to one or more embodiments of this aspect, the at least one performance metric includes an average scheduled rate for the respective wireless device. According to one or more embodiments of this aspect, the at least one performance metric includes an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI.” Also, paragraph 0014 disclose “According to one or more embodiments of this aspect, the respective allocation priority corresponds to the expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device, in the current TTI, divided by the average scheduled rate for the respective wireless device. According to one or more embodiments of this aspect, the determining of the respective allocation priority for each of the plurality of wireless devices and the allocation of resources to at least one of the plurality of wireless devices are configured to occur per transmission time interval, TTI.” Clearly, as shown above “performance metric” and “allocation priority” are defined differently. See NEW Claim 37. Claim 1 and 19 are of different scope with no support (introducing new matter).
The claims and the specification of the instant application does not describe the method/step, “... determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices, each respective allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices and an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI.” Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
The subject matter was not described in the specification (see paragraphs 0013-0014, 0081-0082, 0099) in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and /or use the invention.
Examiner Note: The specification fails to provide antecedent for “an average scheduled rate” and “an expected scheduled rate”. A review of the specification repeat the claim language, however no further description/definition is provided. How is “an average scheduled rate” determined? How is “an expected scheduled rate” determined?
Claim 10 is also rejected for the same reason as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 2. 5, 7-10, 20, 23, and 25-28 are also rejected since they are dependent on the rejected dependent claims 1, and 19, respectfully, as set forth above.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 19, 20, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comsa et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0396694), in view of Walton et al (US Pub. No.:2006/0121946) and further in view of Ren et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015/0334733).
As per claim 1, Comsa disclose A network node (see Fig.1A, a base station 114a, see para. 0020, the base stations 114a, 114b is a base transceiver station (BTS), a Node-B, an eNode B, a Home Node B, a Home eNode B, a gNB, a NR NodeB, a site controller, an access point (AP), a wireless route), comprising:
processing circuitry (see Fig.1A, a base station 114a with a CPU/ circuitry, see para. 0024-0028, 0034, receive signals from, a base station (e.g., the base station 114a), RF signals transmitted by base station) configured to:
determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1A, para. 0020, at least one of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, see para. 0009, priority rules applicable to transmission using multiple numerologies, beams, unintended receivers, multiple configured maximum total powers, each of which correspond to multi devices, see also para. 0100, 0112, 0141, 0200), each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission (see para. 0081, concurrent transmissions leads to one or more determinations about prioritization in power allocation, for example, for different cases on each carrier / a current transmission, across carriers, across multiplexed numerologies, and/or across services (e.g., URLLC and/or eMBB) / priority for each of the plurality of wireless devices on an expected scheduled rate, see para. 0008-0009, a EIRP threshold value, and at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, see also para. 0056, 0127, 0129, 0139-0141); and
allocate resources to at least one of the plurality of wireless devices based at least on the respective allocation priorities associated with the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0009, 0073, 0081-0086, 0112-0115, 0132-0133, 0200, the network node configures the WTRU to perform uplink power control based on one or more of the following: power allocation rules, priorities / respective allocation priorities, dependency on numerology, multiplexed numerologies, interference (e.g., victim nodes), beamforming, and/or uplink power control related signaling, see also para.0007-0009, 0180-0181).
Although Comsa disclose each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device
Comsa however does not explicitly disclose each respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI.
Walton however disclose A network node (see Fig.2A, A base station 104), comprising: processing circuitry (see Fig.2A, a controller 230, see para. 0079-0080, scheduler 234 or controller 230) wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI (see para. 413, when the scheduling scheme requires other system and terminal metrics to be maintained (e.g. the average data rate over the past K transmission intervals, latency for data transmission / an expected scheduled rate), then these metrics are updated, at step 930, the terminal metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the individual terminals, and the scheduling performed for each transmission interval/ a current transmission time interval, TTI, see also Fig.8A, para. 0360-0368, a process to schedule terminals for data transmission based on priority based on an expected scheduled rate, Fig.9C para. 0427-0431 and 10 B, para. 0456-0459, a process to schedule a set of N.sub.T highest priority terminals for data transmission on the downlink and uplink, respectively based on an expected scheduled rate, see also para. 0339-0343, terminals are scheduled for data transmission and assigned channels based on their priorities such that higher priority terminals are generally served before lower priority terminals and the terminals are prioritized based on their average throughput, a "score" is maintained for each active terminal to be scheduled for data transmission, see also para. 0351-0352, the scheduler use the scores to prioritize terminals for scheduling and channel assignment, clearly the respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate / their average throughput, of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI, as taught by Walton, in the system of Comsa, so as to efficiently schedule data transmission on the downlink and uplink. These scheduling schemes may be designed to optimize transmissions (e.g., maximize throughput) for single or multiple terminals in a manner to meet various constraints and requirements (e.g., demand requirements, loading, fairness criteria, data rate capabilities, channel conditions, and so on). Certain properties of the system (e.g., multi-user diversity, receiver processing techniques, and so on) may also be exploited to provide improved performance, see Walton, paragraphs 10-14.
The combination of Comsa and Walton however does not explicitly disclose the metric is based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
Ren however disclose wherein allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1, para. 0077-0086, calculating an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices and allocate priority and a physical resource of the component carrier, allocate a physical resource of the component carrier according to a descending order of scheduling priorities of the terminals, also per step 104, allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device, see Fig.2A-B, para. 0106-0120, allocation priority based on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device, see also para. 0136, a calculation unit 403, configured to calculate a current instantaneous scheduling rate of the first terminal on the first component carrier by using the channel quality information, and calculate a scheduling priority of the first terminal on the first component carrier by using the instantaneous scheduling rate {an expected rate} and the average scheduling rate, see also Abstract, claims 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices, as taught by Ren, in the system of Comsa and Walton, so as to obtain an optimal scheduling rate and optimal fairness while maximizing a utilization rate of spectrum resources during data transmission over multiple carriers, see Ren, paragraphs 0005-0006, 11-15.
As per claim 2, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Ren disclose the network node of claim 1.
Comsa further disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to compute the power headroom in a plurality of spatial directions, the power headroom in each of a plurality of spatial directions is configured to prevent a radio frequency (RF) electro-magnetic-field ( EMF) limit from being exceeded (see para. 0007-0009, power allocation may be dependent on numerology. Power allocation with multiple numerologies may consider a maximum digital-to-analog converter (DAC) dynamic range and/or a maximum configured power. Power applicable to transmissions may be guaranteed. Power allocation for transmission may use multiple beams with P.sub.CMAX configured per direction. Resource selection may be power-aware. Priority rules may be applicable to transmissions using multiple numerologies and/or beams. Power may be allocated based on the presence of unintended receivers (e.g., victim nodes). Power headroom reports may be triggered and/or calculated with multiple numerologies. Power limitations may be signaled with multiplexed numerologies. In certain applications, power sharing may not exceed EIRP requirements (e.g., based on coupling parameters). Uplink power control may use multiple waveforms. Power sharing and/or scaling determination may be used for normalized transmission powers (e.g., to handle scenarios with multiple configured maximum total powers));
and where in each respective allocation priority is further based at least on a power headroom with respect to the RF EMF (see para. 0008-0009, a EIRP threshold value, and at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, power headroom reports are triggered and/or calculated with multiple numerologies, the power limitations are signaled with multiplexed numerologies, see also para. 0056, 0127, 0129, 0139-0141).
As per claim 7, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Ren disclose the network node of claim 1.
Comsa further disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update a spatial power profile for the network node based at least on the allocated resources and a plurality of spatial directions associated with the allocated resources (see para. 0007-0009, power allocation for transmission uses multiple beams with P.sub.CMAX configured per direction. Resource selection may be power-aware. Priority rules may be applicable to transmissions using multiple numerologies and/or beams. Power may be allocated based on the presence of unintended receivers (e.g., victim nodes). Power headroom reports may be triggered and/or calculated with multiple numerologies. Power limitations may be signaled with multiplexed numerologies. In certain applications, power sharing may not exceed EIRP requirements (e.g., based on coupling parameters). Uplink power control may use multiple waveforms. Power sharing and/or scaling determination may be used for normalized transmission powers (e.g., to handle scenarios with multiple configured maximum total powers)).
As per claim 8, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Ren disclose the network node of claim 1.
Walton further disclose wherein a first wireless device with a respective allocation priority is allocated resources associated with a higher at least one of signal to noise plus interference ratio, SINR, and power than resources allocated to a second wireless device having a lower respective allocation priority than the first wireless device, the first and second wireless devices being part of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0137, 0148, 0215, 0352, the priority of a terminal may also be made a function of various other factors such as, for example, payload requirements, the achievable SNR and required setpoint, the delays experienced by the terminals, outage probability, interference to adjacent cells, interference from other cells, data rates, the maximum transmit powers, the type of data to be transmitted, the type of data services being offered, and so on. A large payload may be assigned to a channel with a larger back-off factor, and may be assigned a higher priority since it is typically more difficult to schedule data transmission for a large payload. A terminal with a higher achieved SNR may be assigned higher priority if higher average system throughput is desired. A terminal experiencing longer delays may be upgraded in priority to ensure a minimum level of service. Higher priority may be assigned to data that is time-critical (e.g., retransmitted data), see also para. 0353, 0387, 0392).
As per claim 9, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Ren disclose the network node of claim 1.
Walton further disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, for MIMO communications (see para. 0394-0395, 0397, the active terminals in the MIMO system (i.e., those desiring a data transmission in an upcoming transmission interval) periodically estimate the channel response for each transmit-receive antenna pair and reports CSI indicative of the estimated channel response to the base station. The aggregate CSI received from the collection of active terminals may then be used to (1) select the best set of one or more terminals for data transmission, (2) assign the available transmit antennas to the selected terminals, and (3) select the proper coding and modulation scheme for each transmit antenna.), pair a first wireless device having a first priority with at least one wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices having an allocation priority lower than the first priority, the first wireless device being part of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0352, 0353, 0387, the differences between the channel metrics associated with the channels may be taken into account in the channel assignment. In some instances, it may be better to not assign the highest priority terminal the channel with the best channel metric. For example, a number of channels may be associated with approximately similar metrics for a particular terminal, or a number of channels may provide the required SNR. In these instances, the terminal may be assigned one of several channels and still be properly served. If a lower priority terminal has as its best channel the same one selected by a higher priority terminal, and if there is a large disparity between the lower priority terminal's best and second best channels, then it may be more optimal to assign the higher priority terminal its second best channel and assign the lower priority terminal its best channel).
As per claim 10, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Ren disclose the network node of claim 9.
Walton further disclose wherein the at least one wireless device corresponds to a subset of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0351-0354, a fairness criterion is imposed in scheduling terminals and assigning channels to ensure (or maybe even guarantee) a minimum grade of service (GoS). The fairness criterion is typically applied to all terminals in the system, although a particular subset of the terminals (e.g., premium terminals) are selected for application of the fairness criterion).
As per claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As per claim 25, claim 25 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As per claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As per claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As per claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Second rejection:
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al (US Pub. No.:2018/167897), in view of Walton et al (US Pub. No.:2006/0121946) and further in view of Ren et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015/0334733).
As per claim 1, Sampath discloses A network node (see Fig.2, Fig.3, first apparatus 302, see para. 0049, see also Fig.4, para. 0070), comprising:
processing circuitry (see Fig.2, Fig,3, transceiver 318 of the first apparatus 302, a scheduler 320 of the first apparatus 302, see para. 005, see also Fig.4, processing circuitry 410, para. 0070) configured to:
determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0050-0051, upon receipt of the message 316 by a transceiver 318 of the first apparatus 302, a scheduler 320 of the first apparatus 302 schedules the second apparatus 304 based on the power limit and the indication), each respective allocation priority being based at least on at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0051, the scheduler 320 sends schedule 322 to the second apparatus 304 according to an average power if the power head room is constrained by an RF exposure constraint or the scheduler 320 sends schedule 322 to the second apparatus 304 according to a maximum power limit if the power head room is constrained by a maximum transmit power constraint); and
allocate resources to at least one of the plurality of wireless devices based at least on the respective allocation priorities associated with the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0050-0051, the scheduler 320 sends schedule 322 to the second apparatus 304 according to an average power if the power head room is constrained by an RF exposure constraint or the scheduler 320 sends schedule 322 to the second apparatus 304 according to a maximum power limit if the power head room is constrained by a maximum transmit power constraint, see also para. 0092).
Although Sampath disclose each respective allocation priority being based at least on at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
Sampath however does not explicitly disclose each respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI.
Walton however disclose A network node (see Fig.2A, A base station 104), comprising: processing circuitry (see Fig.2A, a controller 230, see para. 0079-0080, scheduler 234 or controller 230) wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI (see para. 413, when the scheduling scheme requires other system and terminal metrics to be maintained (e.g. the average data rate over the past K transmission intervals, latency for data transmission / an expected scheduled rate), then these metrics are updated, at step 930, the terminal metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the individual terminals, and the scheduling performed for each transmission interval/ a current transmission time interval, TTI, see also Fig.8A, para. 0360-0368, a process to schedule terminals for data transmission based on priority based on an expected scheduled rate, Fig.9C para. 0427-0431 and 10 B, para. 0456-0459, a process to schedule a set of N.sub.T highest priority terminals for data transmission on the downlink and uplink, respectively based on an expected scheduled rate, see also para. 0339-0343, terminals are scheduled for data transmission and assigned channels based on their priorities such that higher priority terminals are generally served before lower priority terminals and the terminals are prioritized based on their average throughput, a "score" is maintained for each active terminal to be scheduled for data transmission, see also para. 0351-0352, the scheduler use the scores to prioritize terminals for scheduling and channel assignment, clearly the respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate / their average throughput, of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI, as taught by Walton, in the system of Sampath, so as to efficiently schedule data transmission on the downlink and uplink. These scheduling schemes may be designed to optimize transmissions (e.g., maximize throughput) for single or multiple terminals in a manner to meet various constraints and requirements (e.g., demand requirements, loading, fairness criteria, data rate capabilities, channel conditions, and so on). Certain properties of the system (e.g., multi-user diversity, receiver processing techniques, and so on) may also be exploited to provide improved performance, see Walton, paragraphs 10-14.
The combination of Sampath and Walton however does not explicitly disclose the metric is based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
Ren however disclose wherein allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1, para. 0077-0086, calculating an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices and allocate priority and a physical resource of the component carrier, allocate a physical resource of the component carrier according to a descending order of scheduling priorities of the terminals, also per step 104, allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device, see Fig.2A-B, para. 0106-0120, allocation priority based on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device, see also para. 0136, a calculation unit 403, configured to calculate a current instantaneous scheduling rate of the first terminal on the first component carrier by using the channel quality information, and calculate a scheduling priority of the first terminal on the first component carrier by using the instantaneous scheduling rate {an expected rate} and the average scheduling rate, see also Abstract, claims 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices, as taught by Ren, in the system of Sampath and Walton, so as to obtain an optimal scheduling rate and optimal fairness while maximizing a utilization rate of spectrum resources during data transmission over multiple carriers, see Ren, paragraphs 0005-0006, 11-15.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Third Rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 19, 20, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comsa et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0396694), in view of Walton et al (US Pub. No.:2006/0121946) and further in view of Chaudhuri et al. (US Patent No.: 9,204,332).
As per claim 1, Comsa disclose A network node (see Fig.1A, a base station 114a, see para. 0020, the base stations 114a, 114b is a base transceiver station (BTS), a Node-B, an eNode B, a Home Node B, a Home eNode B, a gNB, a NR NodeB, a site controller, an access point (AP), a wireless route), comprising:
processing circuitry (see Fig.1A, a base station 114a with a CPU/ circuitry, see para. 0024-0028, 0034, receive signals from, a base station (e.g., the base station 114a), RF signals transmitted by base station) configured to:
determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1A, para. 0020, at least one of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, see para. 0009, priority rules applicable to transmission using multiple numerologies, beams, unintended receivers, multiple configured maximum total powers, each of which correspond to multi devices, see also para. 0100, 0112, 0141, 0200), each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission (see para. 0081, concurrent transmissions leads to one or more determinations about prioritization in power allocation, for example, for different cases on each carrier / a current transmission, across carriers, across multiplexed numerologies, and/or across services (e.g., URLLC and/or eMBB) / priority for each of the plurality of wireless devices on an expected scheduled rate, see para. 0008-0009, a EIRP threshold value, and at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, see also para. 0056, 0127, 0129, 0139-0141); and
allocate resources to at least one of the plurality of wireless devices based at least on the respective allocation priorities associated with the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0009, 0073, 0081-0086, 0112-0115, 0132-0133, 0200, the network node configures the WTRU to perform uplink power control based on one or more of the following: power allocation rules, priorities / respective allocation priorities, dependency on numerology, multiplexed numerologies, interference (e.g., victim nodes), beamforming, and/or uplink power control related signaling, see also para.0007-0009, 0180-0181).
Although Comsa disclose each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device
Comsa however does not explicitly disclose each respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI.
Walton however disclose A network node (see Fig.2A, A base station 104), comprising: processing circuitry (see Fig.2A, a controller 230, see para. 0079-0080, scheduler 234 or controller 230) wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, (see para. 413, when the scheduling scheme requires other system and terminal metrics to be maintained (e.g. the average data rate over the past K transmission intervals, latency for data transmission / an expected scheduled rate), then these metrics are updated, at step 930, the terminal metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the individual terminals, and the scheduling performed for each transmission interval/ a current transmission time interval, TTI, see also Fig.8A, para. 0360-0368, a process to schedule terminals for data transmission based on priority based on an expected scheduled rate, Fig.9C para. 0427-0431 and 10 B, para. 0456-0459, a process to schedule a set of N.sub.T highest priority terminals for data transmission on the downlink and uplink, respectively based on an expected scheduled rate, see also para. 0339-0343, terminals are scheduled for data transmission and assigned channels based on their priorities such that higher priority terminals are generally served before lower priority terminals and the terminals are prioritized based on their average throughput, a "score" is maintained for each active terminal to be scheduled for data transmission, see also para. 0351-0352, the scheduler use the scores to prioritize terminals for scheduling and channel assignment, clearly the respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate / their average throughput, of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI, as taught by Walton, in the system of Comsa, so as to efficiently schedule data transmission on the downlink and uplink. These scheduling schemes may be designed to optimize transmissions (e.g., maximize throughput) for single or multiple terminals in a manner to meet various constraints and requirements (e.g., demand requirements, loading, fairness criteria, data rate capabilities, channel conditions, and so on). Certain properties of the system (e.g., multi-user diversity, receiver processing techniques, and so on) may also be exploited to provide improved performance, see Walton, paragraphs 10-14.
The combination of Comsa and Walton however does not explicitly disclose the metric is based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
Chaudhuri however disclose wherein at least one performance metric includes an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.5A-D, 6A-D, para. 28, 30, the packet scheduler module 240 calculates eNB 11 specific parameters such as Average Packet Drop Rate (PDR) per QCI, Average Scheduling Delay per QCI, Average Throughput per QC in order to schedule a UE 14-1-14-3/ a respective wireless device, see also para. 55, 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein at least one performance metric includes an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, as taught by Chaudhuri, in the system of Comsa and Walton, so as to determine how, when, and whether to grant access to a given user to connect with the network and begin communication, see Chaudhuri, paragraphs 21-22.
As per claim 2, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Chaudhuri disclose the network node of claim 1.
Comsa further disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to compute the power headroom in a plurality of spatial directions, the power headroom in each of a plurality of spatial directions is configured to prevent a radio frequency (RF) electro-magnetic-field ( EMF) limit from being exceeded (see para. 0007-0009, power allocation may be dependent on numerology. Power allocation with multiple numerologies may consider a maximum digital-to-analog converter (DAC) dynamic range and/or a maximum configured power. Power applicable to transmissions may be guaranteed. Power allocation for transmission may use multiple beams with P.sub.CMAX configured per direction. Resource selection may be power-aware. Priority rules may be applicable to transmissions using multiple numerologies and/or beams. Power may be allocated based on the presence of unintended receivers (e.g., victim nodes). Power headroom reports may be triggered and/or calculated with multiple numerologies. Power limitations may be signaled with multiplexed numerologies. In certain applications, power sharing may not exceed EIRP requirements (e.g., based on coupling parameters). Uplink power control may use multiple waveforms. Power sharing and/or scaling determination may be used for normalized transmission powers (e.g., to handle scenarios with multiple configured maximum total powers));
and where in each respective allocation priority is further based at least on a power headroom with respect to the RF EMF (see para. 0008-0009, a EIRP threshold value, and at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, power headroom reports are triggered and/or calculated with multiple numerologies, the power limitations are signaled with multiplexed numerologies, see also para. 0056, 0127, 0129, 0139-0141).
As per claim 7, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Chaudhuri disclose the network node of claim 1.
Comsa further disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update a spatial power profile for the network node based at least on the allocated resources and a plurality of spatial directions associated with the allocated resources (see para. 0007-0009, power allocation for transmission uses multiple beams with P.sub.CMAX configured per direction. Resource selection may be power-aware. Priority rules may be applicable to transmissions using multiple numerologies and/or beams. Power may be allocated based on the presence of unintended receivers (e.g., victim nodes). Power headroom reports may be triggered and/or calculated with multiple numerologies. Power limitations may be signaled with multiplexed numerologies. In certain applications, power sharing may not exceed EIRP requirements (e.g., based on coupling parameters). Uplink power control may use multiple waveforms. Power sharing and/or scaling determination may be used for normalized transmission powers (e.g., to handle scenarios with multiple configured maximum total powers)).
As per claim 8, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Chaudhuri disclose the network node of claim 1.
Walton further disclose wherein a first wireless device with a respective allocation priority is allocated resources associated with a higher at least one of signal to noise plus interference ratio, SINR, and power than resources allocated to a second wireless device having a lower respective allocation priority than the first wireless device, the first and second wireless devices being part of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0137, 0148, 0215, 0352, the priority of a terminal may also be made a function of various other factors such as, for example, payload requirements, the achievable SNR and required setpoint, the delays experienced by the terminals, outage probability, interference to adjacent cells, interference from other cells, data rates, the maximum transmit powers, the type of data to be transmitted, the type of data services being offered, and so on. A large payload may be assigned to a channel with a larger back-off factor, and may be assigned a higher priority since it is typically more difficult to schedule data transmission for a large payload. A terminal with a higher achieved SNR may be assigned higher priority if higher average system throughput is desired. A terminal experiencing longer delays may be upgraded in priority to ensure a minimum level of service. Higher priority may be assigned to data that is time-critical (e.g., retransmitted data), see also para. 0353, 0387, 0392).
As per claim 9, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Chaudhuri disclose the network node of claim 1.
Walton further disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, for MIMO communications (see para. 0394-0395, 0397, the active terminals in the MIMO system (i.e., those desiring a data transmission in an upcoming transmission interval) periodically estimate the channel response for each transmit-receive antenna pair and reports CSI indicative of the estimated channel response to the base station. The aggregate CSI received from the collection of active terminals may then be used to (1) select the best set of one or more terminals for data transmission, (2) assign the available transmit antennas to the selected terminals, and (3) select the proper coding and modulation scheme for each transmit antenna.), pair a first wireless device having a first priority with at least one wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices having an allocation priority lower than the first priority, the first wireless device being part of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0352, 0353, 0387, the differences between the channel metrics associated with the channels may be taken into account in the channel assignment. In some instances, it may be better to not assign the highest priority terminal the channel with the best channel metric. For example, a number of channels may be associated with approximately similar metrics for a particular terminal, or a number of channels may provide the required SNR. In these instances, the terminal may be assigned one of several channels and still be properly served. If a lower priority terminal has as its best channel the same one selected by a higher priority terminal, and if there is a large disparity between the lower priority terminal's best and second best channels, then it may be more optimal to assign the higher priority terminal its second best channel and assign the lower priority terminal its best channel).
As per claim 10, the combination of Comsa, Walton and Chaudhuri disclose the network node of claim 9.
Walton further disclose wherein the at least one wireless device corresponds to a subset of the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0351-0354, a fairness criterion is imposed in scheduling terminals and assigning channels to ensure (or maybe even guarantee) a minimum grade of service (GoS). The fairness criterion is typically applied to all terminals in the system, although a particular subset of the terminals (e.g., premium terminals) are selected for application of the fairness criterion).
As per claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As per claim 25, claim 25 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As per claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As per claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As per claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Forth Rejection:
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comsa et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0396694), in view of Walton et al (US Pub. No.:2006/0121946) and further in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0274097).
As per claim 1, Comsa disclose A network node (see Fig.1A, a base station 114a, see para. 0020, the base stations 114a, 114b is a base transceiver station (BTS), a Node-B, an eNode B, a Home Node B, a Home eNode B, a gNB, a NR NodeB, a site controller, an access point (AP), a wireless route), comprising:
processing circuitry (see Fig.1A, a base station 114a with a CPU/ circuitry, see para. 0024-0028, 0034, receive signals from, a base station (e.g., the base station 114a), RF signals transmitted by base station) configured to:
determine a respective allocation priority for each of a plurality of wireless devices (see Fig.1A, para. 0020, at least one of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, see para. 0009, priority rules applicable to transmission using multiple numerologies, beams, unintended receivers, multiple configured maximum total powers, each of which correspond to multi devices, see also para. 0100, 0112, 0141, 0200), each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission (see para. 0081, concurrent transmissions leads to one or more determinations about prioritization in power allocation, for example, for different cases on each carrier / a current transmission, across carriers, across multiplexed numerologies, and/or across services (e.g., URLLC and/or eMBB) / priority for each of the plurality of wireless devices on an expected scheduled rate, see para. 0008-0009, a EIRP threshold value, and at least one performance metric for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices, see also para. 0056, 0127, 0129, 0139-0141); and
allocate resources to at least one of the plurality of wireless devices based at least on the respective allocation priorities associated with the plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0009, 0073, 0081-0086, 0112-0115, 0132-0133, 0200, the network node configures the WTRU to perform uplink power control based on one or more of the following: power allocation rules, priorities / respective allocation priorities, dependency on numerology, multiplexed numerologies, interference (e.g., victim nodes), beamforming, and/or uplink power control related signaling, see also para.0007-0009, 0180-0181).
Although Comsa disclose each respective allocation priority being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device
Comsa however does not explicitly disclose each respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI.
Walton however disclose A network node (see Fig.2A, A base station 104), comprising: processing circuitry (see Fig.2A, a controller 230, see para. 0079-0080, scheduler 234 or controller 230) wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI (see para. 413, when the scheduling scheme requires other system and terminal metrics to be maintained (e.g. the average data rate over the past K transmission intervals, latency for data transmission / an expected scheduled rate), then these metrics are updated, at step 930, the terminal metrics are used to evaluate the performance of the individual terminals, and the scheduling performed for each transmission interval/ a current transmission time interval, TTI, see also Fig.8A, para. 0360-0368, a process to schedule terminals for data transmission based on priority based on an expected scheduled rate, Fig.9C para. 0427-0431 and 10 B, para. 0456-0459, a process to schedule a set of N.sub.T highest priority terminals for data transmission on the downlink and uplink, respectively based on an expected scheduled rate, see also para. 0339-0343, terminals are scheduled for data transmission and assigned channels based on their priorities such that higher priority terminals are generally served before lower priority terminals and the terminals are prioritized based on their average throughput, a "score" is maintained for each active terminal to be scheduled for data transmission, see also para. 0351-0352, the scheduler use the scores to prioritize terminals for scheduling and channel assignment, clearly the respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate / their average throughput, of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein respective allocation being based at least on an expected scheduled rate of the respective wireless device in a current transmission time interval, TTI, as taught by Walton, in the system of Comsa, so as to efficiently schedule data transmission on the downlink and uplink. These scheduling schemes may be designed to optimize transmissions (e.g., maximize throughput) for single or multiple terminals in a manner to meet various constraints and requirements (e.g., demand requirements, loading, fairness criteria, data rate capabilities, channel conditions, and so on). Certain properties of the system (e.g., multi-user diversity, receiver processing techniques, and so on) may also be exploited to provide improved performance, see Walton, paragraphs 10-14.
The combination of Comsa and Walton however does not explicitly disclose the metric is based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
Chen however disclose wherein allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices (see para. 0047, allocation priority based on an average scheduled rate, an average scheduled rate is computed over a time period as a moving average to provide a balance between maximizing system throughput and fairness, see also para. 0044-0046, claim 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein allocation priority being based at least on an average scheduled rate for a respective wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices, as taught by Chen, in the system of Comsa and Walton, so as to enable a PF policy that causes the network element(s) to prioritize resource allocation based on a ratio of device instantaneous throughput of data and device average throughput of data. In effect, the example PF policy weighs the current achievable bit rate by the average rate received by that device. The average rate may be calculated over any time period as, for example, a moving average. Additionally, the example PF policy provides a balance between maximizing system throughput and fairness, see Chen, paragraphs 0020-0022.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (and overcoming the 112 rejection – all independent claims needs to be of the same scope as claim 37) including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 37 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (US Pub. No.:2013/0310097) – see para. 0024, “FIG. 2 provides an overview of a typical scheduling process in a wireless communication system such as shown in FIG. 1. The scheduler first checks 20 whether all user terminals requiring resources are scheduled to transmit. Any such terminals not yet assigned transmit resources are ordered 21 according to their respective priorities. A list of possible groups is then created 22 from the list of unassigned terminals. The list may be divided into groups having fixed numbers of terminals for example, or according to predetermined priority ranges. The groups are assessed 23 by calculation of predetermined metrics and modified where required. The resulting groups are entered in a grouping table and scheduled 24 for transmission in the system. Each terminal which has been allocated a resource by this process is removed from the list of terminals requiring resources”.
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 LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1335. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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 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.
/LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469