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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not black and white line drawings. For example, figures 4A – 4C include gray shadings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be in narrative form and the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 18 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “nearly equal” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly equal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how unequal is considered to be nearly equal.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8416750 (hereinafter Vargantwar) in review of US 2026/0019369 (hereinafter Bafna).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 14, Vargantwar teaches a method of scheduling traffic in a telecommunications network, the method comprising: receiving a data frame, the data frame including a series of timeslots ordered according to an unordered schedule, wherein the series of timeslots includes at least two noncontiguous groups of data timeslots (FIG. 4, 401-410: details packet encoder/scheduler provides series of timeslots of data frames of noncontiguous groups of control data and traffic data to packet transmit buffers); calculating a revised schedule for the data frame, wherein the revised schedule differs from the unordered schedule in at least one of a time domain characteristic or a frequency domain characteristic (FIG. 4, 408, 412: details timeslots of the traffic data in this buffer is replaced by the control data such that the transmission schedule is different); rearranging the timeslots of the data frame according to the revised schedule in at least one of the time domain or the frequency domain (FIG. 4, 412: details time-slot scheduler selects transmit buffers to provide different schedule); and causing a transmitter of the telecommunications network to transmit the data frame according to the revised schedule (FIG. 4, 414: details transmission timeslots of data frames according to the different schedule).
Vargantwar does not explicitly teach such that the revised schedule includes fewer transmission periods than the unordered schedule.
However, Bafna teaches rearranging such that the revised schedule includes fewer transmission periods than the unordered schedule (FIG. 5; [0117]: details communication timeline 505 may be associated with a lower Wi-Fi active time and lower power consumption compared to the communication timeline 500).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vargantwar to incorporate the teachings of Bafna and include such that the revised schedule includes fewer transmission periods than the unordered schedule of Bafna with Vargantwar. Doing so would decrease power consumption (Bafna, paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 15, Vargantwar teaches wherein the revised schedule includes a reduced number of contiguous groups of data timeslots in the time domain (FIG. 4, 414: details transmission a group at timeslots at -1, 0, 1, 2, 3…).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 16, Vargantwar teaches wherein the revised schedule includes a single contiguous group of data timeslots in the time domain (FIG. 4, 414: details transmission a group at timeslots at -1, 0, 1, 2, 3…).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 17, Vargantwar teaches wherein the revised schedule does not include resource blocks at an edge of a spectrum of the data frame, in the frequency domain (FIG. 4, 412: details time-slot scheduler is silent with respect to resource blocks at an edge of a spectrum of the data frame).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 20, Vargantwar teaches repeating the operations of receiving the data frame, rearranging the timeslots of the data frame, and causing the transmitter to transmit the data frame a plurality of times for a series of successive data frames (FIG. 4, (a) (b) and (c): details repeating operations).
Regarding claim 13, Vargantwar teaches wherein the network node is located at a site level of the telecommunications network and is configured to control scheduling operations for a plurality of different wireless access points (FIG. 2: details wireless communication system in which an example embodiment of selective scheduling of control packets could be carried out).
Claims 5, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargantwar in review of Bafna, further in view of US 7945281 (hereinafter Sigg).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 19, Vargantwar does not explicitly teach wherein, according to the revised schedule, a power amplifier associated with the transmitter is in an ON state for fewer timeslots than in the unordered schedule.
However, Sigg teaches wherein, according to the revised schedule, a power amplifier associated with the transmitter is in an ON state for fewer timeslots than in the unordered schedule (Col. 9, ll. 23-35: details the BSC applies or forward-link transmissions to various mobile stations a scheduling algorithm to allocate the timeslots… In an idle timeslot, on the other hand, the BSC will substantially reduce the gain (or turn off the power amplifier if feasible) to effectively provide no data channel transmissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vargantwar to incorporate the teachings of Sigg and include wherein, according to the revised schedule, a power amplifier associated with the transmitter is in an ON state for fewer timeslots than in the unordered schedule of Sigg with Vargantwar. Doing so would improve user experience (Sigg, col. 7, ll. 62-64).
Regarding claim 18, Vargantwar does not explicitly teach wherein the revised schedule includes an equal or nearly equal number of resource blocks in the frequency domain, for each timeslot.
However, Sigg teaches wherein the revised schedule includes an equal or nearly equal number of resource blocks in the frequency domain, for each timeslot (FIG. 5: details revised schedule nearly equal number of resource blocks in frequency domain for each timeslot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vargantwar to incorporate the teachings of Sigg and include wherein the revised schedule includes an equal or nearly equal number of resource blocks in the frequency domain, for each timeslot of Sigg with Vargantwar. Doing so would improve user experience (Sigg, col. 7, ll. 62-64).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Göransson (US 2023/0379980) details the radio power amplifiers are automatically switched off on a symbol-time basis when no signaling or user data needs to be transmitted on the downlink… even more timeslots are emptied and can trigger micro sleep.
Patel (US 2021/0329631) details DSS interleaving and pre-scheduling to optimize resource utilization.
Beale (US 2020/0022149) details resource allocation in radio systems with frequency domain repetition.
Lin (US 2017/0079033) details transmission resource.
Hole (US 2010/0322204) details adjusting monitoring of timeslots during data transmission.
Marupadauga (US 10,070,456) details selection of resource scheduling mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights