DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to applicant’s submission received 08/29/2024.
2. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
There is no claim to foreign priority or domestic priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 10/29/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
There is/are no IDS submitted at this time for consideration.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 08/29/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6, 16 and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0327716 A1) in view of Huang et al. (CN 112868265, published 2023-08-25, a translated copy is included and is used in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses: A user device (UE), [see figure 2, label 102 and figure 3, label 300] comprising:
a memory; and [¶ 0028]
one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to: [¶ 0028]
monitor uplink (UL) traffic associated with an application of the UE; [the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: the UE has to monitor if the application is streaming video or gaming. These various applications is/are associated with various UL traffic transmission demand]
determine whether a transfer size of UL traffic is greater than or equal to a transfer size threshold; [the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: streaming video and gaming transfer size is measured against a transfer threshold (implied). In other words, when the UE determines it is a streaming video (UL transfer size traffic is below a threshold (implied)) it will apply configuration 726 of figure 7, that is more downlink slot is needed, since less UL transmission is used for streaming. If the application is gaming (UL size transmission is above a certain threshold (implied)) then the UE will use configuration 724 of figure 7, that is more UL slots are needed. The assertion of a threshold size being implied for UL transfer size transmission against a threshold for the different application is seen in supporting reference of Elarabawy et al. (US 2021/0185592 A1), see ¶ 0035. Also see this application (18/820,036) specification submitted on 08/29/2024, ¶ 0021]
when the transfer size of the UL traffic is greater than or equal to the transfer size threshold, [the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: If the application is gaming (UL size transmission is above a certain threshold (implied)) then the UE will use configuration 724 of figure 7, that is more UL slots is needed. The assertion of a threshold size being implied for UL transfer size transmission against a threshold for the different application is seen in supporting reference of Elarabawy et al. (US 2021/0185592 A1), see ¶ 0035. Also see this application (18/820,036) specification submitted on 08/29/2024, ¶ 0021]
determine whether a downlink (DL) usage
communicate the UL traffic using the additional UL resources. [last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: the UE will request configuration 726 or in this case 724, since more UL transmission is needed. In other words, when the UE detects gaming is being performed, it will realize more UL traffic is going to happen so it will request a particular configuration (724) which uses more UL slots/resources]
Wang does not disclose the DL usage level being below a threshold in order to use more UL slots, such difference is seen in the reference of Huang, see the 12th page, step 206 (first and second paragraphs). The term “not saturated” means the DL demand/ bandwidth is below a threshold usage/occupancy (this interpretation is deduced from the last six lines of page 7) which results in the UL ratio to be increased, an example given is that the UL to DL ratio is adjusted from 7: 3 to 8: 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s system in view of Huang. The motivation is for flexibly configure rational network resource for the user terminal according to the environment, and the management of the network resource is very inflexible. [see the second page of Huang].
Claim 18 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 19, Wang discloses: A radio access network (RAN) device, [see figure 2, label 104] comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the RAN device [Figure 2, label 104 (base station), a processor and memory although not explicitly disclosed in the reference of Wang regarding the base station it is well known in the art for base station to possess a memory and processor to carry out the steps as disclosed] to:
allocate uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) resources to a user equipment (UE); [figure 7 in view of the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: Different configurations of UL and DL resources that are requested and used by the terminal]
receive, from the UE, a request for additional UL resources; [the request is seen in the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059 of Wang; the request is seen also in figure 2, label 206]
grant, in accordance with the request, (figure 2, label 208) the additional UL resources to the UE; and receive UL traffic from the UE based on the UL resources and the additional UL resource. [Last 5 lines of ¶ 0059 in view of Figure 7; additional UL resources can be requested in view of gaming by requesting configuration 724. The traffic from gaming uses more UL transmission].
One small difference Wang does not disclose is the idea of additional UL resources is combined with the UL resources already present in order to perform UL transmission, such difference is seen in the reference of Huang, see the 12th page, step 206 (first and second paragraphs). The term “not saturated” means the DL demand/ bandwidth is below a threshold (this interpretation results from the last six lines of page 7) allows the UL ratio to be increased, an example given is that the UL to DL ratio is adjusted from 7: 3 to 8: 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s system in view of Huang. The motivation is for flexibly configure rational network resource for the user terminal according to the environment, and the management of the network resource is very inflexible. [see the second page of Huang].
Claim 20, Wang further discloses: The RAN device of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the RAN device to: grant the additional UL resources by increasing a number of UL slots per frame and decreasing a corresponding number of DL slots per frame. [see the last sentence of ¶ 0055 and ¶ 0071].
Claim 2, Wang discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: determine whether the application is configured to generate application UL traffic that is greater than or equal to an UL application threshold, and when the UL application traffic that is greater than or equal to the UL application threshold, communicate the request for the additional UL resources. [the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: streaming video and gaming transfer size is measured against a transfer threshold (implied). In other words, when the UE determines it is a streaming video (UL transfer size traffic is below a threshold) it will apply configuration 726 of figure 7, that is more downlink slot is needed, since less UL transmission is used for streaming. If the application is gaming (UL size transmission is above a certain threshold) then the UE will use configuration 724 of figure 7, that is more UL slots are needed. The assertion of a threshold size being implied for UL transfer size transmission against a threshold for the different application is seen in supporting reference of Elarabawy et al. (US 2021/0185592 A1), see ¶ 0035. Also see this application (18/820,036) specification submitted on 08/29/2024, ¶ 0021]
Claim 3, Wang discloses: The UE of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: when the UL application traffic is less than the UL application threshold, continue monitoring the UL traffic associated with the application. [the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: streaming video and gaming transfer size is measured against a transfer threshold (implied). In other words, when the UE determines it is a streaming video (UL transfer size traffic is below a threshold) it will apply configuration 726 of figure 7, that is more downlink slot is needed, since less UL transmission is used for streaming. If the application is gaming (UL size transmission is above a certain threshold) then the UE will use configuration 724 of figure 7, that is more UL slots are needed. The UE will always monitor for UL traffic to see whether to switch its configuration. The assertion of a threshold size being implied for UL transfer size transmission against a threshold for the different application is seen in supporting reference of Elarabawy et al. (US 2021/0185592 A1), see ¶ 0035. Also see this application (18/820,036) specification submitted on 08/29/2024, ¶ 0021].
Regarding claim 6, Wang further discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: when the transfer size of the UL traffic does less than the transfer size threshold, continue monitoring the UL traffic associated with the application. [the last 5 lines of ¶ 0059: streaming video and gaming transfer size is measured against a transfer threshold (implied). In other words, when the UE determines it is a streaming video (UL transfer size traffic is below a threshold) it will apply configuration 726 of figure 7, that is more downlink slot is needed, since less UL transmission is used for streaming. If the application is gaming (UL size transmission is above a certain threshold) then the UE will use configuration 724 of figure 7, that is more UL slots are needed. The UE will always monitor for UL traffic to see whether to switch its configuration. The assertion of a threshold size being implied for UL transfer size transmission against a threshold for the different application is seen in supporting reference of Elarabawy et al. (US 2021/0185592 A1), see ¶ 0035. Also see this application (18/820,036) specification submitted on 08/29/2024, ¶ 0021].
2. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0327716 A1) in view of Huang et al. (CN 112868265, published 2023-08-25, a translated copy is included) in view of JP 2022517311 (published 2022-03-08, herein refer to as JP).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Huang discloses: The UE of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1).
Wang in view of Huang does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: determine whether one or more UE key performance indicator (KPIs) are satisfied; and communicate the request for the additional UL resources when the one or more of the KPIs are satisfied. However, JP discloses the above limitation, see last few lines of the second paragraph on the 11th page: “This allows the transmission duration to be minimized and the delay request to be met by optimal uplink scheduling…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s system in view of Huang and JP.
The motivation is for the UE to assist the gNB to realize when and how to schedule the UE's uplink traffic to optimize power savings. [see the sixth page of JP].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 5, 7 – 15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
