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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 03/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 20170273094).
Claims 1 and 10:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method comprising,
determine one or more first user equipment and one or more second user equipment, out of a plurality of user equipment connected to a base station
(“...information reported by the UE is location indication information...base station may adjust the resource scheduling priority of the UE according to the location indication information...”) [paras 61-62];
the one or more first user equipment being located farther from the base station than the one or more second user equipment
(“...The UE may feed back location assistance information of multiple forms to the base station, so that the base station adjusts a resource scheduling priority of the UE according to the location assistance information reported by the UE...the UE reports the location indication information (edge sign) 0 and 1 to the BS along with a signaling signal...”) [paras 54, 55];
and perform communication throttling on the one or more first user equipment
(“...The base station performs resource scheduling according to the resource scheduling priority of the UE...”) [para 63].
Claims 3 and 12:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, further comprising,
wherein the processor is configured to perform the communication throttling on the one or more first user equipment determined to be located farther from the base station based on information indicating either at least one of: a distance between the base station and each of the plurality of user equipment
(“...the UE feeds back edge location information to the base station. The UE computes a distance between the UE and an edge of the high-frequency coverage area according to the GPS positioning information and the high-frequency coverage area, and writes the distance into the reported edge location information (edge inf.)...”) [paras 55, 56];
or a communication quality between the base station and each of the plurality of user equipment.
Claims 8 and 17:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, further comprising,
wherein the processor is configured to perform a process of improving efficiency of communication of the one or more second user equipment that is not subject to the communication throttling out of the plurality of user equipment
(“...The base station performs resource scheduling according to the resource scheduling priority of the UE...”) [para 63].
Examiner note: The language of claims 8 and 17 is broad as it does not capture the exact process step/steps by which applicants are accomplishing an end. That is, the improvement of the efficiency of the communications of another device that is not subject to the communication throttling would apply to any and every device that does not immediately have a congestion control policy applied to it, because this improvement would by chance be a side effect of the enactment of any congestion control procedure, as the end goal of such congestion control systems and methods is to improve utilization of resources and the throughput of the affected networks and the devices communicating across and/or with them. Therefore, by applying congestion control procedures on one or more devices, the resulting net effect is that the other devices that share the same resource pool and that have not been congestion controlled, will benefit as a result, and therefore experience improved efficiency of communication. If applicants intended a specific process for this improvement, amending in those specifics is recommended to clearly capture applicants’ specific approach.
Claim 19:
Cheng et al. teach a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by a processor of a computer and that cause the computer to operate as the communication control device according to claim 1 [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor; paras 134-137].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20170273094) in view of Sun et al. (US 20190174349).
Claims 2 and 11:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, but Cheng et al. do not teach,
wherein the processor is configured to perform the communication throttling on the one or more first user equipment when the communication control device makes at least one of: a determination that the number of the plurality of user equipment connected to the base station is equal to or greater than a threshold, a determination that congestion has occurred in the base station, or a determination that traffic congestion has occurred in an area to which the base station belongs
However, Sun et al. do teach,
wherein the processor is configured to perform the communication throttling on the one or more first user equipment when the communication control device makes at least one of: a determination that congestion has occurred in the base station
or a determination that traffic congestion has occurred in an area to which the base station belongs
(“...determining, by the base station, whether to start congestion control... base station determines whether the UE in the cell meets a congestion control condition; and if the congestion control condition is met, the base station determines to perform congestion control on the UE...a sum of resource requirements of the UE in the cell is greater than resources that can be used for direct communication between UEs in the UE in the cell...a transmission delay of at least one of the UE in the cell is greater than a congestion control delay threshold...”) [Sun et al. para 148];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants' filed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun et al. into that of Cheng et al. as Sun et al. provides examples of specific types of congestion control techniques that Cheng et al. would implement as part of its capabilities and processes. Cheng et al. do not expressly describe specifics as to how they perform “resource scheduling”, but Sun et al. teach multiple techniques that would fit into the operations of Cheng et al. for prioritizing which UEs receive more or less resources/restrictions on their communications.
Claims 4 and 13:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, but Cheng et al. do not teach,
wherein the communication throttling includes increasing a data transfer interval in communication of the one or more first user equipment
However, Sun et al. do teach,
wherein the communication throttling includes increasing a data transfer interval in communication of the one or more first user equipment
(“...the quantity of service packet transmission times of the UE is determined based on network load, to be specific, based on both resource block (RB) utilization of a scheduling allocation (SA) resource pool and UE distribution, to increase a quantity of scheduled UE in the cell, reduce inter-UE interference, and improve a PDR of a network...”) [Sun et al. para 150];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants' filed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun et al. into that of Cheng et al. as Sun et al. provides examples of specific types of congestion control techniques that Cheng et al. would implement as part of its capabilities and processes. Cheng et al. do not expressly describe specifics as to how they perform “resource scheduling”, but Sun et al. teach a technique of transmission time adaptation based on load/utilization of resources that would fit into the operations of Cheng et al. for prioritizing which UEs receive more or less resources/restrictions on their communications.
Claims 5 and 14:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, but Cheng et al. do not teach,
wherein the processor is configured to give the one or more first user equipment an instruction or request regarding the communication throttling
However, Sun et al. do teach,
wherein the processor is configured to give the one or more first user equipment an instruction or request regarding the communication throttling
(“...A first policy is used to instruct first UE to serve as UE whose transmission delay is greater than the congestion control delay threshold, to be specific, to instruct the first UE to discard a service packet, which is short for packet discarding...A second policy is used to instruct first UE to adjust a packet transmission period, for example, increase or decrease a current packet transmission period, or keep a current packet transmission period unchanged...”) [Sun et al. paras 154-163];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants' filed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun et al. into that of Cheng et al. as Sun et al. provides examples of specific types of congestion control techniques that Cheng et al. would implement as part of its capabilities and processes. Cheng et al. do not expressly describe specifics as to how they perform “resource scheduling”, but Sun et al. teach a technique of transmission time adaptation based on load/utilization of resources that would fit into the operations of Cheng et al. for prioritizing which UEs receive more or less resources/restrictions on their communications.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20170273094) in view of Gaur et al. (WO 2016118166 A1).
Claims 6 and 15:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, but Cheng et al. do not teach,
wherein the communication throttling is performed within a range in which a quality of service determined for the one or more first user equipment is maintained
However, Gaur et al. do teach,
wherein the communication throttling is performed within a range in which a quality of service determined for the one or more first user equipment is maintained
(“...the order for flow control for target UEs can be as follows in decreasing order of priority...UEs with lowest QoS class (from worst radio conditions, to average radio conditions, to best radio conditions)...UEs with medium QoS class (from worst radio conditions, to average radio conditions, to best radio conditions)...UEs with highest QoS class (from worst radio conditions, to average radio conditions, to best radio conditions)...”) [Gaur et al. para 23-27];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants' filed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gaur et al. into that of Cheng et al. in order to prioritize resource allocation according to varying groupings of QoS levels. While Cheng et al. teach making and providing for service requests, Cheng et al. do not provide for details regarding how differing QoS requirements among UEs may be handled. Gaur et al. provide teachings for how different QoS requirements can be handled in a manner that fits into the resource scheduling processes of Cheng et al. The teachings of Gaur et al. would be an extension to the teachings of Cheng et al. as both are concerned with resource allocation in response to congestion control policy enforcement by a base station based on a set of criteria/conditions.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20170273094) in view of Gorti et al. (US 20030189943 A1).
Claims 7 and 16:
Cheng et al. teach a communication control device comprising a processor, the processor being configured to [FIG 11 illustrates a base station with processor; para 134] and a communication control method, as in claims 1 and 10 above, but Cheng et al. do not teach,
wherein the processor is configured to exclude communication of non-real-time data from the communication throttling
However, Gorti et al. do teach,
wherein the processor is configured to exclude communication of non-real-time data from the communication throttling
(“...determine whether the received packet is a real-time packet or a non-real-time packet based on what may be referred to as a time priority...Packets that are classified as real-time packets may be processed by packet processor 103 prior to the packets classified as non-real-time packets. Furthermore, flow control unit 201 may further be configured to determine the value priority associated with the received packet. Each class of packets may be assigned a particular value priority where the value priority may refer to the rank or priority of the class of packets to be processed by processor 103...”) [Gorti et al. para 26];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants' filed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gorti et al. into that of Cheng et al. in order to prioritize real-time and non-real-time traffic separately by each category with its own respective set of policies/rules. Cheng et al. teach resource scheduling in response to congestion control triggers, but do not cover specific details regarding how congestion control techniques can be applied based on traffic classifications. The teachings of Gorti et al. provide for a specific implementation of classification based traffic prioritization based on real-time and non-real-time traffic categories. Gorti et al. provides for technique(s) that is/are applicable to Cheng et al. without altering the principle of operation of Cheng et al. in a manner that would extend the capabilities of Cheng et al. with traffic classification specific prioritizations. These techniques would improve upon the resource scheduling congestion control processes of Cheng et al. by providing for a much more refined and granular level of prioritization and allocation of resources to the UEs that need it most for real-time data.
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 Oscar Louie whose telephone number is (571) 270-1684 and E-mail address is OSCAR.LOUIE@USPTO.GOV. Note that a form SB-439 must be on file in order to conduct correspondence by E-mail, however, E-mail may be utilized to arrange time(s) for interview(s) without the SB-439 form. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday between 05:30AM-03:30 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.
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.
/OSCAR A LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights