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 9-14 are pending. Claim 8 is cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements dated 04/05/2024 and 09/27/2024 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title recites the acronyms “UL” and “DL” which should be replaced with the term each acronym represents.
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, [0118]-[0120], Identify one or more sets of capabilities) 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);
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]-[0123], 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, [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, [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, [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]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dube et al, US 2019/0258964 [0067] discloses the one or more models can account for: various factors defining performance characteristics of the machine learning task (e.g., model, model framework, training dataset, testing dataset, training framework, hyperparameters, hardware resources), possible queueing in cloud computer environments 50 in which the machine learning task is executed (e.g., unavailability of resources and/or scheduling delays), and/or pre-emption in said cloud computing environments 50 supporting priority status associated with various machine learning tasks.
8. 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