adjNotice 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. 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. Claims 2, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi (WO 2015/174892 A1), in view of Keishnaswamy et al. (US 2021/0243839), hereinafter referred to as Krishnaswamy
Regarding claim 2, Joshi discloses all claim limitations, except a distributed unit (DU) comprising memory and processor.
Krishnaswamy teaches the DUs 105-fig.1B, and/or Rus 106 may include a PRANmon component 107 that implements any of the functionality described herein, e.g., implemented as a set of instructions stored in a memory and executed by at least one processor in the respective device, see 0059.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Krishnaswamy
into the system of Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to serve as the real-time processing engine, managing lower-layer function (RLC, MAC , Physical Layers) and interface directly with the Radio Unit (RU).
Regarding claim 6, Joshi discloses the unit resource is a RB in a slot, see 0026.
Regarding claim 10, Joshi discloses wireless resources are allocated in units of resource blocks (RBs) for two group of UEs. It is noted that each group comprising one UE or more UEs, see 0026. For example, the eNodeB 101-fig.2 (see fig.3 for memory & processor) communicates (allocate traffic) with UE 106-fig.2 in a cell, which is a central-UE (one group), wherein UE 105 and UE107 are cell-edge-UE (second group). The UE 106 does not fall within the coverage of the neighboring eNodeBs 102 &103, therefore the signals of the UE 106 will not cause significant interference on such cell-edge-UEs, see 0030-0031 (equivalent to allocate traffic for each group of units resources previously configured for a cell). The eNodeBs 101-fig.2, 102, and 103 limit information transmitted to coordinate RB allocation to a subset of RBs reserved for cell-edge-UEs, and different allocation orders for each neighboring cell for RBs of this reserved subset. By generating these allocation orders so that they correlate in such a way as to avoid simultaneous RB allocation in neighboring cells, inter-cell co-channel interference can be avoided, see 0030. In other words, the eNodeB 101-fig.2 transmits allocation order of RB to central-UE 106, that is different to allocation orders for each neighboring cell for RBs with a subset of RBs reserved for cell-edge-UEs (equivalent to determine an allocation order of unit of resources in the each group to be different to avoid inter-cell interference in the cell when allocating traffic for the each group).
Joshi, however, fails to teach a scheduling method performed by a distributed unit (DU).
Krishnaswamy teaches the DUs 105-fig.1B that includes a PRANmon component 107 to implement any of the functionality described herein, e.g., implemented as a set of instructions stored in a memory and executed by at least one processor in the respective device, see 0059.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Krishnaswamy
into the system of Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to
serve as the real-time processing engine, managing lower-layer function (RLC, MAC , Physical Layers) and interface directly with the Radio Unit (RU).
Allowable subject matter
6. Claims 1 and 7-9 are allowed.
7. Claims 3-5 are rejected as they are dependent to claim 2. However, these claims would be allowable rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. Claim 11 is rejected as it is dependent to claim 10. However, it would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chakraborty et al. (US 2023/0118482); Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2024/0284460) are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights