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 Objections
Claims 3 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is requested to remove “S103” in claim 3, and “(in size)” in claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length, and without a drawing. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
4. Figures 1-4 and 5a-5b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al. (US 2015/0289287 A1 - IDS), hereinafter Larsson, in view of Liu et al. (US 11,382,113), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Larsson discloses: (1) for a Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) system the grant timing is straight forward. An uplink grant received in a downlink subframe n triggers an uplink transmission in an uplink subframe n+4. In a Time Division Duplex (TDD) system the grant timing is a bit more complicated, but yet similar, see 0032; (2) a traffic pattern of communicating packets in the radio communication, e.g. depending on time between successive packets, packet size, direction i.e. uplink or downlink, and the number of pending packets in a transmission buffer, see 0034, 0038 (equivalent to determining characteristics of data traffic received at the transmission buffer); (3) gaming is one example of delay-sensitive traffic. The increase of this delay-sensitive traffic and its significant share in the Internet traffic leads to the radio interfaces of wireless communication systems having to meet various latency requirements (latency requirement) to ensure that a UE user can enjoy the activities employing this type of traffic, see 0006; (4) a scheduling request at 308-fig.3 is transmitted to the network node before the data is predicted to arrive in the UE transmission buffer, see 0048 (equivalent to … meet a certain latency requirement, and sending a corresponding indication to a network node).
Larsson, however, fails to teach “at reception of a first packet of the data traffic, determining that available uplink resources are not sufficient to transmit a second packet of the data traffic early enough to meet a certain latency requirement”.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of Larsson, discloses the UE may detect a pattern of data packet sizes in the event-driven data. As indicated by block 1308-fig.13, the UE may re-allocate resources by providing an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant. The larger size may be sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more of the subsequent (e.g., second, etc.) data packets. That is, the resource grant may have a size or capacity sufficient to transmit the plurality of data packets together in a single transmission, see col.18, lines 8-19. In other words, Liu teaches at reception of a first data packet size of the data traffic, the UE must have to determine that available uplink resources are not sufficient to transmit a second data packet of the data traffic, and therefore, may re-allocate resources having an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant that is sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more subsequent (e.g., second, etc).
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 Liu into the system of Larsson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to minimize data packet delay or latency requirement for uplink transmission within constraints imposed by grant size, delay tolerance, packet format, and resources.
Regarding claim 3, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Larsson-Liu for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. As indicated by block 1308-fig.13 of Liu, the UE may re-allocate resources by providing an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant. The larger size may be sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more of the subsequent (e.g., second, etc.) data packets. That is, the resource grant may have a size or capacity sufficient to transmit the plurality of data packets together in a single transmission, see col.18, lines 8-19. In other words, Liu teaches at reception of a first data packet size of the data traffic, the UE must have to determine that available uplink resources are not sufficient to transmit a second data packet of the data traffic, and therefore, may re-allocate resources having an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant that is sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more subsequent (e.g., second, etc).
Regarding claim 4, Larsson teaches predicting, based at least on the obtained traffic characteristics, data to arrive in a transmission buffer, see abstract, and 0042, 0045. Thus, the arrival time of the second packet can be predicted.
Regarding claim 7, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Larsson-Liu for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. As indicated by block 1308-fig.13 of Liu, the UE may re-allocate resources by providing an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant. The larger size may be sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more of the subsequent (e.g., second, etc.) data packets. That is, the resource grant may have a size or capacity sufficient to transmit the plurality of data packets together in a single transmission, see col.18, lines 8-19. In other words, Liu teaches at reception of a first data packet size of the data traffic, the UE must have to determine that available uplink resources are not sufficient to transmit a second data packet of the data traffic, and therefore, may re-allocate resources having an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant that is sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more subsequent (e.g., second, etc).
Regarding claim 10, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Larsson-Liu for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. As indicated by block 1308-fig.13 of Liu, the UE may re-allocate resources by providing an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant. The larger size may be sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more of the subsequent (e.g., second, etc.) data packets. That is, the resource grant may have a size or capacity sufficient to transmit the plurality of data packets together in a single transmission, see col.18, lines 8-19. In other words, Liu teaches at reception of a first data packet size of the data traffic, the UE must have to determine that available uplink resources are not sufficient to transmit a second data packet of the data traffic, and therefore, may re-allocate resources having an increased resource grant having a larger size than the first resource grant that is sufficient to encompass the first data packet and one or more subsequent (e.g., second, etc).
Regarding claim 16, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Larsson-Liu for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The UE 500-fig.5 of Larsson includes transmission buffer 500f, I/O interface 500a, and processor “P”, see 0032, 0075, 0077 and 0084.
10. Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al. (US 2015/0289287 A1 - IDS), hereinafter Larsson, in view of Chilla et al. (US 2021/040999), hereinafter Chilla.
Regarding claim 2, Larsson discloses all claimed limitations, except, wherein data traffic comprises pose information associated to an extended reality, XR, service run on an application layer of the UE.
Chilla, in the same field of endeavor as Larsson, teaches: (1) various types of data traffic delivered to a wireless device (e.g., a smartphone) may have low latency requirements, such as XR real-time data, see 0034; (2) in some XR implementations, when an XR user wearing an HMD moves their head, the on-device processing determines the head pose and sends the head pose information to the edge cloud through a low-latency, high quality-of-service 5G link via a connected wireless device, see 0035; (3) software architecture 300-fig.3 including a radio protocol stack for the user and control planes in wireless communications between a base station 350 and a wireless device 320, see 0079, and the software architecture 300 may include an application layer, see 0088.
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 Chilla
into the system of Larsson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate the emergence of technologies that can benefit from low latency data delivery, such as robotic head-mounted devices (HMD), Internet of Things (JOT) devices, vehicles, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Larsson et al. (US 2015/0289287 A1 - IDS), hereinafter Larsson
Regarding claim 19, Larsson teaches a method performed by a network node, the method comprising: receiving from a UE data traffic comprising a plurality of packets associated to a certain data traffic (see paragraph 0034; the UE obtains traffic characteristics that are associated with and somehow pertain to the radio communication between the UE and the network node. Action 302 may be executed more or less at the same time, or even somewhat before e.g. on a continuous basis, as the UE communicates data with the network node serving the UE. At least some of the traffic characteristics may be measured in real-time, e.g. by the system and/or by the UE. Some useful but non-limiting examples of traffic characteristics that may be obtained in this action 302 are presented below. In this context, “data” should be understood broadly to represent any information e.g. related to payload or signaling. This action thus implies a latest activity performed by the UE in terms of communication); receiving an indication that available uplink, UL, resources at the UE are not sufficient to receive a second packet of the data traffic early enough to meet a certain latency requirement (see paragraph 0049 -0050; UE internal priority weight for transmission of the SR may be applied and vary as function of time. For example, the priority weight may be set to increase as long as the procedure is within a current time window, so that the priority weight is relatively low at the beginning of the time window and increases with time until the end of the time window. Thereby the transmission of scheduling requests may correspondingly increase with the priority weight such that one or more scheduling requests are transmitted in dependence of the priority weight. In possible embodiments the priority weight may also be based on a predicted size of a burst from the UE. If a burst is expected, e.g. if a predicted likelihood value of data arriving in the transmission buffer is high, information regarding a burst size of the expected burst can be used in order to set a reliable priority weight. If the expected burst size is high, the priority weight will increase and conversely if the expected burst size is low the priority weight will decrease); and transmitting control information indicative of an activation of UL resources to be used for a transmission of the second packet (see paragraph 0054; a scheduling request may be provided with a time stamp indicating when data is predicted to have arrived in the transmission buffer. Thereby the serving network node may be able to make its own determination of when to send an uplink grant to the UE in order to optimize the use of radio resources).
Allowable subject matter
14. Claims 20-23 and 25 are rejected based on its dependency allowed, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
15. Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, set forth in this Office action
16. Claims 5-6, 8-9, and 12-14 are rejected based on its dependency, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
17. Claims 5-9 are objected based on its dependency, but would be allowable if claim 4 if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Freda et al. (US 2022/0150934); Kang et al. (US 2023/0397216) are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
19. 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