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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Status of Application/Amendments/claims
Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16 are amended.
Claims 1, 4-18 are pending and have been examined, of which claim 1 is independent.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
In view of the amendment filed, the following rejections/objections are withdrawn.
Claim objections for claims 4 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 101 for claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by the Amendment
The following rejections are new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendment filed. The prior art is maintained for the reasons described in the response to argument section and the cited portions are updated as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “the the SR or CSI” in increase limitation, which appears to have redundant “the”.
Claim 12 recites “12: (Currently amended)”, wherein the semicolon appears to be typographical error for period.
Claim 14 recites “an existing UE’s already in the cell”, which appears to be typographical error for either “the existing UEs in already in the cell” or “an exiting UE already in the cell”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the PUCCH resource” and “the incoming UE’s”, preceded by “to allocate PUCCH resources” and “incoming UEs”. It is unclear which one of the plurality of resources or incoming UE is further limited. Dependent claims are rejected for same reason.
Claim 5 recites “the UE to be reconfigured”, which has lack of antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 5 recites in last limitations, two conditions – (1) “if periodicity are at the maximum” and (2) “determine if the cause is emergency or high priority cause”, followed by “if not” and “if so” limitations. It is unclear “if not” and “if so” are based on both conditions or which one of condition.
Claim 8 depends on claims 7 and 1, and recites “the secondary cell / carrier”, which have lack of antecedent basis in the claim. Dependent claims are rejected for same reason.
Claim 11 recites “the SR and the CSI”, preceded by two recitations of “”SR and CSI” in claim 11 (and one in claim 1). It is unclear which recitation is further limited.
Claim 13 depends on claims 7 and 1, and recites “the already connected UEs”, which has lack of antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 7 recites “existing UEs” and claim 1 recites “incoming UEs” and “RRC connected UE”, which are different than “already connected UEs”.
Claim 15, last two limitations recite to set “PUCCH SR overload status”, It is unclear which limitation sets the value. In comparison to claim 11, it is noted that the calculation and equation with threshold of SR limitation appear to be for PUCCH SR Overload status and the calculation and equation with threshold of CSI limitation appear to be for PUCCH CSI Overload status instead of for SR.
Claim 16 recites “the UEs”, which have lack of antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if limitation refers to “incoming UEs” of claim 1 or “existing UEs” of claim 7. Dependent claims are rejected for same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czerniecki et al. (Performance analysis of dynamic PUCCH allocation algorithm in LTE network; cited in IDS 12/4/2024, NPL # 2) in view of Yu et al. (US 20240314789)
Regarding claim 1, Czerniecki teaches a system (LTE network or LTE system, page 211, col 2) comprising:
a Base Station (BS) (eNodeB (base station), page 211, col 2) comprising
an Incoming-Traffic Tracker (page 215, col 2- the dynamic PUCCH allocation algorithm; the para above table 4 describes that with the increase in number of the active UEs, the dynamic PUCCH allocation algorithm with instantly increase the number of resource blocks designated to PUCCH, thus the algorithm is incoming traffic tracker) configured to calculate an incoming traffic rate of incoming UEs entering a cell (page 213, col 2: adaptation is made proportionally to the number of UEs in RRC connected state in a cell – cell load; page 212, col 2: during busy hours it is important to serve as many users as possible and after busy hours, when the traffic load is small, limit the amount of resources allocated to the PUCCH channel); and
a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) Resource Allocator (table 3, fig 4, col 1 and 2 of page 215: baseline static PUCCH allocation algorithm; page 215, col 2- para 2 - describes that constant number of resource blocks designated to form PUCCH channel, thus the static resource allocation algorithm is considered PUCCH resource allocator) configured to allocate PUCCH resources of a PUCCH including a fixed number of PUCCH Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs) to a Radio Link Control (RRC) connected UE in a radio access network (page 215, col 2 and table 4: the number of resource blocks 8 and 10 allocated for PUCCH by the static PUCCH allocation number 2-4 is shown in table 4, and the increase in number of the active UEs is shown in fig 4, where the number of resource blocks designated to PUCCH remains constant), wherein the PUCCH resources comprise a Scheduling Request (SR) and Channel State Information (CSI) (page 211, col 1, section 1, para 2: PUCCH is a control channel dedicated to carry UE specific L1/L2 signaling including scheduling request (SR) and channel state information (CSI)), and the PUCCH Resource Allocator is configured to assign the SR and the CSI to the incoming UEs and set the SR and the CSI periodicities for the incoming UE’s (page 213, col 2, section 3, para after fig 2: dynamic PUCCH resource allocation algorithm can adjust scheduling request (SR) and channel state information (CSI) periodicities dynamically) without changing the fixed number of PUCCH PRBs (page 215, col 2- para 2 - describes that constant number of resource blocks designated to form PUCCH channel; the number of resource blocks 8 and 10 allocated for PUCCH by the static PUCCH allocation number 2-4 is shown in table 4; in the static PUCCH allocation, the SR and CQI periodicity is set as in table 4, without changing number of allocated PUCCH PRBs).
Czerniecki teaches PUCCH resource allocation, with SR and CSI/CQI periodicity, and the configuration monitored for number of active UEs from 50 to 840. The reference teaches system comprising base station but does not teach processor and memory. Yu is directed to configuring uplink resources including static and dynamic resources.
Yu further teaches a Base Station (BS) comprising a processor and a program memory configured to execute instructions (network node 1600 comprising processing circuitry 1618 and memory 1604, fig 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PUCCH resource allocation with SR and CSI periodicity as taught by Czerniecki with base station for static uplink resource configuration as taught by Yu for the benefit of effectively using the available UL resources in a cell as taught by Yu in para 31.
Regarding claim 7, Czerniecki further teaches wherein the BS is configured to use the incoming-traffic rate and a number of existing UEs already in the cell (table 4 shows number of active UEs in the cell from 50, 100, 300, 500, 700 and 840) to determine if the PUCCH Resource Allocator needs to increase an SR or CSI capacity when it is in an overloaded condition (page 215, col 2 and table 4: with the increase in number of the active UEs, the dynamic PUCCH allocation algorithm will instantly increase the number of resource blocks designated to PUCCH; as shown in table 4, the dynamic PUCCH allocates fix number of RBs from 4-8 based on number of active UEs in the cell being 50-840; page 215, col 1: UEs were configured to offer traffic exceeding the total theoretical capacity of the eNB, 840 was maximum number of terminals supported by the eNodeB; page 213, col 2 last para – when governed by the dynamic allocation algorithm, the PUCCH size can be expanded; here, expanding PUCCH increases the capacity of SR and CSI) or decrease the SR or CSI capacity or both when it is in an underloaded condition (page 213, col 2 last para – when governed by the dynamic allocation algorithm, the PUCCH size can be compressed, PCP, PUCCH compression procedure; here, reducing PUCCH decreases the SR and CSI capacity).
Regarding claim 13, Czerniecki further teaches wherein the PUCCH Resource Allocator is configured use a same SR and CSI resource assignment and periodicity for the already connected UEs (page 214, col 1, para 1: during PEP (PUCCH expansion procedure), new RBs are assigned to PUCCH channel, with the same periodicities of SR and CSI) for until the already connected UEs depart from the cell (page 214, col 1, last para: the algorithm reacts when number of UE change, every PUCCH configuration can support certain number of UEs in RRC connected state which is calculated by the eNodeB).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czerniecki et al. in view of Yu et al. in further view of Shuai et al. (US 20210360713)
Regarding claim 6, Czerniecki in view of Yu teaches the limitations of parent claim. Czerniecki in view of Yu teaches number of UE and traffic load determination but does not teach that the traffic tracker is configured to estimate different parameters for incoming traffic. Shuai is directed to radio resource management (RRM) algorithm in a base station (abstract).
Shuai further teaches wherein the Incoming-Traffic Tracker (RRM algorithm, abstract, para 26) is configured to estimate a call origination, a handover into the cell (HandIn), a carrier aggregation, and a carrier addition for the incoming traffic rate (para 26: the RRM algorithm includes one or more of the following: a primary component carrier PCC anchor selection algorithm of carrier aggregation CA, a secondary component carrier SCC selection algorithm of the CA, a user admission and preemption control algorithm, a handover decision algorithm, a single radio voice call continuity SRVCC decision algorithm, a cell congestion control algorithm, a load balancing control algorithm, an optimal carrier selection control algorithm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PUCCH resource allocation with SR and CSI periodicity as taught by Czerniecki in view of Yu with radio resource management (RRM) algorithm as taught by Shuai for the benefit of making network deployment more flexible as taught by Shuai in para 56.
Claims 9, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czerniecki et al. in view of Yu et al. in further view of Barabell et al. (US 20210314975)
Regarding claim 9, Czerniecki in view of Yu teaches the limitations of parent claim, including increasing or decreasing SR or CSI capacity. The reference also teaches dynamically adjusting SR and CSI periodicity but does not teach increasing/decreasing periodicity when increase/decrease is needed. Barabell is directed to radio access network and teaches location aware PUCCH and overload control (abstract, para 273).
Barabell further teaches wherein the PUCCH Resource Allocator (para 278: process for managing the PUCCH load dynamically) is configured to: when an increase is needed, increase the the SR or CSI periodicity or both (para 278: at RRC-Connection set-up, a CU can assign the CSI and SR periods according to the system (cell) load, as the system load increases, the CU increases P-SR and P-CSI for new UEs); and when a decrease is needed, decrease the SR or CSI periodicity or both (para 278: at RRC-Connection set-up, a CU can assign the CSI and SR periods according to the system (cell) load, for relatively light system loads, the CU keeps P-SR and P-CSI relatively small to enhance performance). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PUCCH resource allocation with SR and CSI periodicity as taught by Czerniecki in view of Yu with dynamically changing SR/CSI periods based on cell load as taught by Barabell for the benefit of enhancing performance as taught by Barabell in para 278.
Regarding claim 12, Czerniecki in view of Yu fails to teach, but Barabell further teaches wherein the PUCCH Resource Allocator is configured to: apply an increased SR or CSI periodicity, or both, to newly arriving UEs only (para 278: at RRC-Connection set-up, a CU can assign the CSI and SR periods according to the system (cell) load, as the system load increases, the CU increases P-SR and P-CSI for new UEs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PUCCH resource allocation with SR and CSI periodicity as taught by Czerniecki in view of Yu with dynamically changing SR/CSI periods based on cell load as taught by Barabell for the benefit of enhancing performance as taught by Barabell in para 278.
Regarding claim 18, Czerniecki in view of Yu teaches the limitations of parent claim.
Czerniecki in view of Yu fails to teach, but Barabell further teaches wherein the BS is configured not to send an RRC Reconfiguration to all UEs in the cell (para 278: at RRC-Connection set-up, a CU can assign the CSI and SR periods according to the system (cell) load, as the system load increases, the CU increases P-SR and P-CSI for new UEs; here, sending the new UE is obvious that reconfiguration is not sent to all UEs); and the BS is configured to send the RRC Reconfiguration to specific UEs to reallocate PUCCH resources (para 278: at RRC-Connection set-up, a CU can assign the CSI and SR periods according to the system (cell) load, as the system load increases, the CU increases P-SR and P-CSI for new UEs; here, new UEs are considered specific UEs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine PUCCH resource allocation with SR and CSI periodicity as taught by Czerniecki in view of Yu with dynamically changing SR/CSI periods based on cell load as taught by Barabell for the benefit of enhancing performance as taught by Barabell in para 278.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to Czerniecki reference not teaching the amended claim limitation for “fixed number of PUCCH PRBs” and “without changing the fixed number of PUCCH PRBs” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the reference teaches the dynamic PUCCH allocation between 4 to 8 PRBs, which is not considered fixed. However, in view of amendment, the reference table 3, numbers 2-4 configurations for the baseline static PUCCH allocation is considered as indicated above with respect to the claim. Table 3, number 2-4 clearly teaches fixed number of PRB allocation for PUCCH along with SR and CQI periodicity, and page 215, col 2 describes that the resources are constant when the number of UEs were changed from 50 up to 840. Thus, the Czerniecki reference with new cited portions, appears to teach the argued limitation.
Conclusion
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 RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights