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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bangole et al. (12,363,686).
For claims 1, 14, Bangole teaches a terminal device (col. 8, line 60 – col. 9, line 40) in a communication network (col. 8, lines 40-60), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (col. 43, line 30 – col. 44, line 20), cause the terminal device to:
receive from a network device in the communication network, allocation of first resources (col. 11, lines 45-67; col. 13, line 20-55) for a traffic flow (col. 17, lines 25-45) of a service provided via the communication network (col. 10, line 60 – col. 11, line 25);
receive on the first resources, a message (col. 19, lines 30-60) indicating information relating to second resources allocated for transmission of at least one packet in the traffic flow of the service (col. 44, lines 35-60); and
receive on the second resources, the at least one packet in accordance with the message (col. 6, line 60 – col. 8, line 5).
For claims 3, 17, Bangole teaches that wherein the message comprises at least one of the following: a radio resource control signaling (col. 4, lines 15-40); a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (col. 5, lines 15-50); and downlink control information (DCI) (col. 13, lines 35-50).
For claims 4, 18, Bangole teaches wherein the message comprises an indication of one or more occasions for monitoring a wake-up signal (col. 29, lines 15-25).
For claims 6, 20, Bangole teaches wherein the message comprises an indication of one or more occasions for monitoring a control channel associated with the transmission of the at least one packet (col. 13, lines 20-55).
For claim 7, Bangole teaches that receiving the at least one packet in accordance with the message comprises:
monitoring at the one or more occasions the control channel for downlink control information (DCI), the downlink control information indicating the second resources for the transmission of the at least one packet (col. 13, lines 35-50); and
receiving the at least one packet on the second resources (col. 6, line 60 – col. 8, line 5).
For claim 8, Bangole teaches that the message comprises information of the second resources for the transmission of the at least one packet (col. 19, lines 30-60).
For claim 9, Bangole teaches receiving the at least one packet in accordance with the message comprises: receiving the at least one packet on the second resources (col. 6, line 60 – col. 8, line 5).
For claim 11, 16, Bangole teaches wherein the second resources are allocated by the network device when the at least one packet in the traffic flow is late for using the first resources (col. 29, lines 25-50; col. 34, line 65 – col. 35, line 25).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangole as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (12,255,846).
For claims 2, 15, Bangole teaches scheduling but does not expressly disclose wherein the first resources are allocated by semi-persistent scheduling. Zhang teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 5, lines 1-30). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Zhang in order to provide improvements in packet arrival (background).
Claim(s) 5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangole as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Islam et al. (12,075,356).
For claims 5, 19, Bangole does not expressly disclose the cited limitations. Islam teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) wherein receiving the at least one packet in accordance with the message comprises:
monitoring the wake-up signal at the one or more occasions (col. 38, line 50 – col. 40, line 10);
monitoring a control channel for downlink control information (DCI) when the wake- up signal is detected (col. 37, line 55 – col. 38, line 15), the downlink control information indicating the second resources for the transmission of the at least one packet (col. 6, lines 5-45); and
receiving the at least one packet on the second resources (col. 48, lines 5-50).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Islam in order to provide improvements to control signaling (background).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (2020/0,351,937).
For claim 10, Bangole does not expressly disclose the limitations. Lee teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where the message further comprises information of a modulation coding scheme (MCS) (Paras 33, 46) for the transmission of the at least one packet (Para 29). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Lee in order to provide improvements to semi-persistent scheduling (paras 4-5).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Islam et al. (12,101,763).
For claim 12, Bangole does not expressly disclose wherein the message comprises an indication that the at least one packet is dropped. Islam teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes the limitation (col. 6, line 60 – col. 8, line 45). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Islam in order to provide improvements to the mobile communications (col. 5, lines 1-50).
For claim 13, Islam teaches wherein receiving the at least one packet in accordance with the message comprises: stopping receiving the at least one packet that is dropped (col. 6, line 60 – col. 8, line 45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445