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 .
1. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are pending. Claim 8 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
2. In light of the amendment to the title, the objection to the specification is withdrawn and the new title is entered.
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on pages 8-9, the applicant argues that Prakash does not disclose "acquiring information indicating different amounts of resources to be assigned." In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's response.
Prakash, FIG. 3, [0117]-[0120] explicitly teaches "acquiring information indicating different amounts of resources to be assigned". Prakash [0118] discloses identifying a set of capabilities. “[0118] At 315, the SMF 220-a may identify one or more sets of capabilities based on which the SMF 220-a may determine one or more delay budgets at 320.”
Prakash’s teachings of “capabilities” are explicitly disclosed as being as being different amounts of resources in paragraphs [0118]-[0120]. Prakash [0118] explicitly discloses “the set of RAN capabilities may include a subcarrier spacing for communications via the base station 105-b, support for mini slot communications via the base station 105-b, a frame structure for communications via the base station 105-b, a bandwidth for communications via the base station 105-b, a bandwidth part for communications via the base station 105-b, or any combination” which the Examiner interprets as being different amounts of resources.
As further taught in Prakash “[0089] In some wireless communications systems, a slot may further be divided into multiple mini-slots containing one or more symbols. In some instances, a symbol of a mini-slot or a mini-slot may be the smallest unit of scheduling. Each symbol may vary in duration depending on the subcarrier spacing or frequency band of operation, for example. Further, some wireless communications systems may implement slot aggregation in which multiple slots or mini-slots are aggregated together and used for communication between a UE 115 and a base station 105.”
[0093] A carrier may be associated with a particular bandwidth of the radio frequency spectrum, and in some examples the carrier bandwidth may be referred to as a “system bandwidth” of the carrier or the wireless communications system 100. For example, the carrier bandwidth may be one of a number of predetermined bandwidths for carriers of a particular radio access technology (e.g., 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, or 80 MHz). In some examples, each served UE 115 may be configured for operating over portions or all of the carrier bandwidth. In other examples, some UEs 115 may be configured for operation using a narrowband protocol type that is associated with a predefined portion or range (e.g., set of subcarriers or resource blocks (RBs)) within a carrier (e.g., “in-band” deployment of a narrowband protocol type).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 9-11, the applicant argues that that Prakash does not disclose “selecting, from the acquired information, a combination of UL communication delay and DL communication delay which causes a desired total amount of resources to be assigned for the UL communication and the DL communication.” In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's response.
“[0118] At 315, the SMF 220-a may identify one or more sets of capabilities based on which the SMF 220-a may determine one or more delay budgets at 320.”
[0101] In the wireless communications system 100 (e.g., carrying TSN communications), a QoS standard for a particular QoS flow may define a target PDB. The target PDB may set a target latency or total time delay for communications between a UE 115 and the core network 130 of the wireless communications system 100 below which communicated data packets may be used.
[0122] At 340, the base station 105-b may identify one or more variable delay budgets. For example, the base station 105-b may identify an uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration, as may have been received at 325. In some cases, the base station 105-b may further identify a downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration. In some cases, the uplink and downlink variable delay budgets may be different.
[0123] At 345, the base station 105-b may determine the total delay budget between the UE 115-a and the core network entity 205-a for communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration.
[0124] At 350, the base station 105-b may schedule a communication between the UE 115-b and the base station 105-b based on the first variable delay budget and the second variable delay budget. For example, the base station 105-b may transmit to the UE 115-b, and the UE 115-b may receive from the base station 105-b, one or more scheduling messages to indicate, for example, time and frequency resources with which to communicate.
Regarding claim 1, on pages 11-12, the applicant argues that Prakash does not disclose “assigning the amount of resources for the UL communication and for the DL communication corresponding to the desired total amount of resources to be assigned.” In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's response.
“[0102] The base station 105 may use the first component of the delay incurred between the core network 130 and the base station 105 to schedule uplink and downlink communications, for example, with the UE 115.”
“[0106]…. Based on the indications of the delay or delays in the PDB configuration, the base station 105-a may schedule communications between the UE 115-a and the base station 105-a. In some cases, scheduling based on the indications of delays may allow network resources to be used more efficiently, among other benefits, relative to scheduling without indications of delays.”
Prakash discloses [0124] At 350, the base station 105-b may schedule a communication between the UE 115-b and the base station 105-b based on the first variable delay budget and the second variable delay budget. For example, the base station 105-b may transmit to the UE 115-b, and the UE 115-b may receive from the base station 105-b, one or more scheduling messages to indicate, for example, time and frequency resources with which to communicate.
For these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prakash et al, US 2020/0107339 (as cited in the IDS dated 04/05/2024) hereafter Prakash.
As for claim 1, Prakash discloses:
A method of assigning resources in a communication network for communication between a communication device and a destination node based on communication delay, the method comprising:
acquiring information indicating different amounts of resources (Fig. 3, steps 315-325, [0117]-[0120], Identify one or more sets of capabilities. “the set of RAN capabilities may include a subcarrier spacing for communications via the base station 105-b, support for mini slot communications via the base station 105-b, a frame structure for communications via the base station 105-b, a bandwidth for communications via the base station 105-b, a bandwidth part for communications via the base station 105-b, or any combination” which the Examiner interprets as being different amounts of resources) to be assigned for uplink (UL) communication from the communication device to the destination node and for downlink (DL) communication from the destination node to the communication device in order to attain corresponding different communication delays in the UL communication and in the DL communication (Fig. 3, steps 315-320, [0038], [0117]-[0119], identifying an uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration and identifying a downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration);
selecting, from the acquired information, a combination of UL communication delay and DL communication delay which causes a desired total amount of resources to be assigned for the UL communication and the DL communication ([0004], [0038], Identifying the uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications and the a downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications, communication between the UE and the radio access node may be scheduled based on the uplink variable delay budget or the downlink variable delay budget) while attaining a two-way communication delay being a sum of the UL communication delay and the DL communication delay which complies with a determined delay criteria (Fig. 3, steps 340-345, [0004], [0038], [0122]-[0124], Determine the total delay budget between the UE 115-a and the core network entity); and
assigning the amount of resources for the UL communication and for the DL communication (Fig. 3, 340-350, [0102], [0106], [0122]-[0124], Schedule/assign the communication/resources based on the uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications and the downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications) corresponding to the desired total amount of resources to be assigned (Fig. 3, step 350, [0102], [0106], [0124], Assigning using one or more scheduling messages to indicate time and frequency resources with which to communicate…based on the total delay budget).
As for claim 2, Prakash discloses:
assigning the amount of resources for the UL communication and for the DL communication comprises computing a sum of the resources being assigned for UL communication for a particular UL communication delay and the resources being assigned for DL communication for a particular DL communication delay (Fig. 3, 340-350, [0122]-[0124], Schedule/assign the communication/resources based on the uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications and the downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications).
As for claim 3, Prakash discloses:
the acquiring of information comprising: measuring or estimating UL communication delays and DL communication delays for different amounts of resources being assigned to the UL communication and the DL communication ([0188], based on signaling the determined delays to the radio access node, the radio access node may relatively more accurately schedule communications between the UE, radio access node, and network entity).
As for claim 7, Prakash discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising computer-executable instructions for causing a device to perform the method of claim 1 when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit included in the device ([0154], The code stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as system memory or other type of memory. In some cases, the code 735 may not be directly executable by the processor).
As for claim 9, Prakash discloses:
A device (Fig. 3, [01116], The base station for assigning resources for communication) configured to assign resources in a communication network for communication between a communication device and a destination node based on communication delay, the device comprising a processing unit and a memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing unit ([0154], The code stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as system memory or other type of memory. In some cases, the code 735 may not be directly executable by the processor), wherein the device is operative to:
acquire information indicating different amounts of resources (Fig. 3, steps 315-325, [0120], Acquire, by the base station, a delay budget configuration indicating the first variable delay budget and a second variable delay budget for communications of the first latency type between the UE 115-b and the core network entity 205-a) to be assigned for uplink (UL) communication from the communication device to the destination node and for downlink (DL) communication from the destination node to the communication device in order to attain corresponding different communication delays in the UL communication and in the DL communication (Fig. 3, steps 315-320, [0038], [0118]-[0119], identifying an uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration and identifying a downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications of the first latency type via the communication link based on the delay budget configuration);
select, from the acquired information, a combination of UL communication delay and DL communication delay which causes a desired total amount of resources to be assigned for the UL communication and the DL communication ([0004], [0038], Identifying the uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications and the a downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications, communication between the UE and the radio access node may be scheduled based on the uplink variable delay budget or the downlink variable delay budget) while attaining a two-way communication delay being a sum of the UL communication delay and the DL communication delay which complies with a determined delay criteria (Fig. 3, steps 340-345, [0004], [0038], [0122]-[0123], Determine the total delay budget between the UE 115-a and the core network entity); and
assign the amount of resources for the UL communication and for the DL communication (Fig. 3, 340-350, [0122]-[0124], Schedule/assign the communication/resources based on the uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications and the downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications) corresponding to the desired total amount of resources to be assigned (Fig. 3, step 350, [0106], [0124], Assigning using one or more scheduling messages to indicate time and frequency resources with which to communicate…based on the total delay budget).
As for claim 10, Prakash discloses:
assigning the amount of resources for the UL communication and for the DL communication comprises computing a sum of the resources being assigned for UL communication for a particular UL communication delay and the resources being assigned for DL communication for a particular DL communication delay (Fig. 3, 340-350, [0122]-[0124], Schedule/assign the communication/resources based on the uplink variable delay budget for uplink communications and the downlink variable delay budget for downlink communications).
As for claim 11, Prakash discloses:
the acquiring of information comprising: measuring or estimating UL communication delays and DL communication delays for different amounts of resources being assigned to the UL communication and the DL communication ([0188], based on signaling the determined delays to the radio access node, the radio access node may relatively more accurately schedule communications between the UE, radio access node, and network entity).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 4, 6, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al, US 2020/0107339 in view of Sridhar et al, US 2021/0014725 (as cited in the IDS dated 04/05/2024) hereafter Sridhar.
As for claims 4 and 12, Prakash does not explicitly disclose training (DL) a machine-learning (ML) model with the acquired information wherein the selecting of a combination of UL communication delay and DL communication delay comprises: supplying the trained ML model with the desired two-way communication delay to be attained, wherein the trained ML model outputs a measure of the amount of resources to be assigned for the UL communication and for the DL communication to attain the desired total amount of resources for the desired two-way communication delay.
However, Sridhar discloses training (DL) a machine-learning (ML) model with the acquired information wherein the selecting of a combination of UL communication delay and DL communication delay comprises: supplying the trained ML model with the desired two-way communication delay to be attained (Sridhar, Fig. 5, 503-506, [0030]-[0032], [0053]-[0056], Input/supply the model with the uplink and downlink delay information), wherein the trained ML model outputs a measure of the amount of resources to be assigned for the UL communication and for the DL communication to attain the desired total amount of resources for the desired two-way communication delay (Sridhar, Fig. 5, 509, [0030]-[0032], [0059]-[0060], The trained model allocates resources based on the predicted future encoding which is determined based on end-to-end delays for both UL and DL communication. Ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to the user equipment wirelessly connected to the RAN in order to accommodate the determined throughput).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prakash with training (DL) a machine-learning (ML) model with the acquired information wherein the selecting of a combination of UL communication delay and DL communication delay comprises: supplying the trained ML model with the desired two-way communication delay to be attained, wherein the trained ML model outputs a measure of the amount of resources to be assigned for the UL communication and for the DL communication to attain the desired total amount of resources for the desired two-way communication delay as taught by Sridhar to improve a quality of service of the bidirectional data flow (Sridhar, [0028]).
As for claims 6 and 14, Prakash does not explicitly disclose the desired total amount of resources to be assigned being a lowest total amount.
However, Sridhar discloses the desired total amount of resources to be assigned being a lowest total amount (Sridhar, [0060], sufficient resources are allocated to the user equipment 310 in order to accommodate the determined throughput. The Examiner interprets that “sufficient” includes lowest total amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prakash with the desired total amount of resources to be assigned being a lowest total amount as taught by Sridhar to improve a quality of service of the bidirectional data flow (Sridhar, [0028]).
6. Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al, US 2020/0107339 in view of Kato et al, US 2014/0293945 hereafter Kato.
As for claims 5 and 13, Prakash does not explicitly disclose the desired total amount of resources to be assigned being an amount being below a predetermined resource threshold value.
However, Kato discloses the desired total amount of resources to be assigned being an amount being below a predetermined resource threshold value (Kato, Fig. 6, [0113], Allocating an amount of radio resources that is below the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prakash with the desired total amount of resources to be assigned being an amount being below a predetermined resource threshold value as taught by Kato to improve communication quality (Kato, [0115]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 15-19 allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
8. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 15-19 are allowable over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggests, or render obvious the following italic limitations:
In claim 15,… determining a first combined delay value using the first UL delay value and the first DL delay value; determining whether the first combined delay value satisfies a delay criterion; determining a first combined resource value using the first UL resource value and the first DL resource value; determining whether the first combined resource value satisfies a resource criterion; and as a result of determining that i) the first combined delay value satisfies the delay criterion and ii) the first combined resource value satisfies the resource criterion, assigning an amount of resources for an UL communication and for a DL communication based on the first UL resource value and the first DL resource value…in combination with other limitations recited as specified in claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached at (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 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights