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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner has taken notice that claims 1-20 have been amended, and claim 21 has been newly added. Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of newly found reference Panin.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2020/0314681 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kuo, in view of Panin (US 2017/0078208 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches a processor (Kuo – Fig. 4b; Paragraph [0111], note apparatus 20 may be a UE (user equipment); Paragraph [0113], note apparatus 20 may include or be coupled to a processor 22 for processing information and executing instructions or operations) comprising:
circuitry to cause a user equipment (UE) device to autonomously adjust priority of information to be transmitted using one or more logical channels (Kuo – Fig. 1a; Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include LCH priority, Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), Bucket Size Duration (BSD), and LCH Mapping Restriction rule(s); Paragraph [0064], note as an example, if the traffic from a LCH has been delayed for a certain amount of time exceeding a threshold, then the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the priority level of this LCH; Paragraph [0120], note processor 22 and memory 24 may be included in or may form a part of processing circuitry or control circuitry).
Kuo does not teach decreasing a priority associated with a type of information to be transmitted using one or more logical channels based at least on one or more indications that the type of information is being successfully received.
In an analogous art, Panin teaches decreasing a priority associated with a type of information to be transmitted using one or more logical channels based at least on one or more indications that the type of information is being successfully received (Panin – Paragraph [0030], note priority levels may also be implemented using a scheme that gradually increases or decreases the priority level of particular traffic types (via QoS tagging, see Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]) based upon a pre-established criteria such as a counter, a conditional event, or any other threshold, the priority scheme may gradually increase the priority of traffic associated with a particular data backup task until confirmation is received from a local backup storage that data has been successfully received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Panin into Kuo in order to implement a priority scheme that allows adjustment of traffic priority based on criteria such as an event indicating successful reception, improving flexibility for various network conditions (Panin – Paragraphs [0025] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kuo and Panin, specifically Kuo teaches wherein the circuitry is to cause the UE device to adjust one or more logical channel priority parameters of the one or more logical channels to decrease the priority associated with the type of information to be transmitted (Kuo – Fig. 1a; Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include LCH priority, Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), Bucket Size Duration (BSD), and LCH Mapping Restriction rule(s); Paragraph [0064], note as an example, if the traffic from a LCH has been delayed for a certain amount of time exceeding a threshold, then the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the priority level of this LCH (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also allow decreasing priority level)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kuo and Panin, specifically Kuo teaches wherein the circuitry is to cause the UE device to decrease the priority associated with the type of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, on one or more packet statistics (Kuo – Paragraph [0060], note when the medium access control (MAC) service data units (SDUs) (such as URLLC packets, see Paragraph [0072]) from a LCH have failed in transmission due to resource collision of its transmission opportunity with other data or control consecutively for at least N>1 times, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH mapping restrictions).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kuo and Panin, specifically Kuo teaches wherein the circuitry is to cause the UE device to adjust one or more bit rates associated with the one or more logical channels to decrease the priority associated with the type of information to be transmitted (Kuo – Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR); Paragraph [0064], note the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the prioritized bit rate (PBR) of this LCH).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kuo and Panin, specifically Kuo teaches wherein the circuitry is to cause the UE device to adjust one or more logical channel priority parameters of the one or more logical channels based, at least in part, on a timer (Kuo – Fig. 1a; Paragraph [0066], note the modifying 140 may include starting a timer when the LCH is switched to a modified LCP setting, upon the timer expiration, the LCH may fall back to the original LCP setting (including both LCP parameters and LCH mapping restriction)).
Regarding claim 8, Kuo teaches a system (Kuo – Fig. 4b; Paragraph [0113], note apparatus 20 may include two or more processors that may form a multiprocessor system, the multiprocessor system may be tightly coupled or loosely coupled (e.g., to form a computer cluster)), comprising:
one or more processors to cause a user equipment (UE) device to autonomously adjust priority of information to be transmitted using one or more logical channels (Kuo – Fig. 1a, 4b; Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include LCH priority, Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), Bucket Size Duration (BSD), and LCH Mapping Restriction rule(s); Paragraph [0064], note as an example, if the traffic from a LCH has been delayed for a certain amount of time exceeding a threshold, then the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the priority level of this LCH; Paragraph [0111], note apparatus 20 may be a UE (user equipment); Paragraph [0113], note apparatus 20 may include or be coupled to a processor 22 for processing information and executing instructions or operations).
Kuo does not teach decreasing a priority associated with a type of information to be transmitted using one or more logical channels based at least on one or more indications that the type of information is being successfully received.
In an analogous art, Panin teaches decreasing a priority associated with a type of information to be transmitted using one or more logical channels based at least on one or more indications that the type of information is being successfully received (Panin – Paragraph [0030], note priority levels may also be implemented using a scheme that gradually increases or decreases the priority level of particular traffic types (via QoS tagging, see Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]) based upon a pre-established criteria such as a counter, a conditional event, or any other threshold, the priority scheme may gradually increase the priority of traffic associated with a particular data backup task until confirmation is received from a local backup storage that data has been successfully received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Panin into Kuo in order to implement a priority scheme that allows adjustment of traffic priority based on criteria such as an event indicating successful reception, improving flexibility for various network conditions (Panin – Paragraphs [0025] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, except the claim is written in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Panin as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2023/0379241 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kanamarlapudi.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kuo and Panin, specifically Kuo teaches wherein the one or more indications comprise a packet error, and wherein the circuitry is to cause the UE device to adjust one or more logical channel priority parameters of the one or more logical channels based, at least in part, on the packet error (Kuo – Paragraph [0060], note when the medium access control (MAC) service data units (SDUs) (such as URLLC packets, see Paragraph [0072]) from a LCH have failed in transmission due to resource collision of its transmission opportunity with other data or control consecutively for at least N>1 times, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH mapping restrictions).
The combination of Kuo and Panin does not teach wherein the one or more indications comprise a packet error rate, and adjusting one or more logical channel priority parameters of the one or more logical channels based, at least in part, on the packet error rate.
In an analogous art, Kanamarlapudi teaches wherein the one or more indications comprise a packet error rate, and adjusting one or more logical channel priority parameters of the one or more logical channels based, at least in part, on the packet error rate (Kanamarlapudi – Paragraph [0076], note QoS identifier (which may also be referred to as “5QI”) parameters may be configured by a network to provide a mapping of QoS flows to data radio bearers (DRBs), a set of 5QI parameters may be associated with an 5QI which may be a pointer to a set of QoS characteristics such as packet error rate, each DRB may be mapped to a logical channel with an associated priority to be able to transmit based on per logical channel prioritization (LCP) rules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kanamarlapudi into the combination of Kuo and Panin in order to perform QoS rule matching to map packets from a flow to a DRB associated with LCP (Kanamarlapudi – Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above.
Claims 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Panin as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of WIPO publication WO 2022/086984 A1, hereinafter referred to as Deenoo.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kuo and Panin, specifically Kuo teaches herein the circuitry is to cause the UE device decrease the priority associated with the type of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, on a prediction (Kuo – Paragraph [0065], note in some cases the UE may predict the resource collision based on knowledge relating to traffic patterns and uplink resource allocation, thus, the UE may also change the LCP parameters and/or LCH mapping restrictions of a LCH based on the prediction prior to actual occurrence of such collision).
The combination of Kuo and Panin does not teach decreasing the priority of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, a neural network predicting one or more logical channel priority parameters for the one or more logical channels.
In an analogous art, Deenoo teaches decreasing the priority of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, a neural network predicting one or more logical channel priority parameters for the one or more logical channels (Deenoo – Fig. 3; Paragraph [0139], note the AI filter 320 may include a neural network; Paragraph [0140], note the WTRU 102 may perform AI-based Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) using the AI filter 320, and may generate the AI-processed packet data unit in accordance with the AI-based LCP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Deenoo into the combination of Kuo and Panin in order to utilize AI filters for LCP to dynamically track per-packet prioritization for one or more services as a function of changing radio conditions, data rates, jitter, latency, and/or contents of a PDU or the like (Deenoo – Paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Panin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2023/0087091 A1), hereinafter referred to as Damnjanovic.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kuo and Panin does not teach wherein the circuitry is further to cause a neural network to generate a predicted logical channel prioritization setting that is expected to improve transmission performance based at least on packet transmission statistics associated with the type of information, and cause the UE device to decrease the priority associated with the type of information using the predicted logical channel prioritization setting.
In an analogous art, Damnjanovic teaches wherein the circuitry is further to cause a neural network to generate a predicted logical channel prioritization setting that is expected to improve transmission performance based at least on packet transmission statistics associated with the type of information, and cause the UE device to decrease the priority associated with the type of information using the predicted logical channel prioritization setting (Damnjanovic – Fig. 2; Paragraph [0098], note one or more devices 205 may modify parameters (including a prioritized bit rate, a bucket size duration, a parameter based on the packet delay, a parameter based on an amount of data exceeding a packet delay threshold, a parameter associated with a scheduling bucket size, etc., see Paragraph [0050]) for the prioritization procedure based on a machine learning algorithm (which may be a neural network, see Paragraph [0106]), the machine learning algorithm may be based on the one or more delay parameters 250, a target packet delay 215, one or more metrics associated with predicting the packet delay 215 (e.g., a packet transmission reliability), one or more statistical parameters associated with the packet delay 215 (e.g., second order statistics, such as a variance of the jitter), or any combination thereof; Paragraph [0118], note the device may adjust a respective priority of one or more logical channels of the set of logical channels based on packet delay).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Damnjanovic into the combination of Kuo and Panin in order to improve data transmission reliability and latency by multiplexing data based on predicting transmission delay (Damnjanovic – Paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keith (US 2013/0077486 A1) discloses prioritization scheme and compressing traffic until an acknowledgement is received.
Lee et al. (US 2021/0127402 A1) discloses logical channel prioritization and AI system with neural network.
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 BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights