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 filed February 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues – “The guard time is a fixed interval inserted between slot transmissions to accommodate timing uncertainties; it is not taught as a per-packet delay computed from traffic pattern characteristics received from an industrial controller, nor as a mechanism for shaping a spread of industrial control packets over time/resources. Pang's guard time is a link-level protection parameter; it is not process-aware scheduling that re-times individual industrial data packets based on their traffic pattern characteristics.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “per-packet” delay) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s claim language recites “the delay of at least one packet” which does not require per-packet delay and there the claims are not interpreted as per-packet delay.
Pang’s guard time is reflected in the time slots which fits with the communication making adjustments based on network latency from past traffic. Applicant’s present claim language is broader than applicant’s argument against insertion at the link level.
Applicant argues – “Thus, neither Racz nor Pang, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests:
‘ intentionally adding a packet-specific delay (not merely accepting backlog),’
‘ for the purpose of providing a spread of a plurality of industrial-control packets
over time/resources,’ and
‘determining that added delay based on traffic pattern characteristics obtained from
the industrial controller’.
As recited above the claims do not require “packet-specific delay” (see #2 above.). In particular, the claim language recites “a delay added to at least one packet” and “delay is added to provide a spread of the plurality of packets”. A delay added to the “at least one packet” produces the minimum spread for the packets which meets the limitations of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “spread … of packets” over time/resources) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Racz and Pang teach spread of the packets is over time and the communications resources because at least one extra delay is added to the transmission and with that delay the packets have spread.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ”traffic pattern characteristics” obtained from the industrial controller”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claim language does not specifically teach the industrial controller is the source of the “traffic pattern characteristics”.
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, 3-8, 10-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz et al., US 20210173372 A1 (hereafter referred to as Racz) in view of Pang et al., US 20220095255 A1 (hereafter referred to as Pang).
Claim 8, Pang teaches a scheduler entity configured to operate in an industrial environment for scheduling a plurality of data packets from an industrial controller to one or more industrial devices over a wireless communication network (p. 21, “wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission of the packet data…” And p. 81, “a programmable logic controller 112 is used in order to send industry control frames to user equipment 126 via the inspection unit 102 and the scheduling unit 104.”), wherein the scheduler entity being connected to the industrial controller (“scheduling”, p. 1, “The present invention generally relates to industry automation process-aware scheduling over a wireless infrastructure, and in particular to a node, a system and methods for wirelessly controlling devices of a collaborative device group in an industrial infrastructure.”), the scheduler entity comprises a processor and a memory, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor such that the scheduler entity is being configured for:
receiving, from the industrial controller, traffic pattern characteristics associated with the plurality of data packets intended to the one or more industrial devices (p. 21, "identified packet data flow", characteristics is the specific flow. And p. 112, "For supporting an IA process-aware scheduling, a key factor may be the proper identification of the control flow of a given IA device.");
receiving timing information related to a plurality of radio resources for transmission of the plurality of data packets (p. 21, "communication cycle length" And p. 22, “the characteristic comprises a communication cycle length of a communication between the node and the corresponding, respective device. The communication cycle length may hereby be set on a per-device basis, i.e. different devices may have different communication cycle lengths.” See also p. 112, "When the flows are identified, the next step may be the determination of the communication cycle length, which is an important characteristic of a flow, and hence an important characteristic of an IA process."); and
scheduling the plurality of data packets on the plurality of radio resources using the traffic pattern characteristics and the timing information related to the plurality of radio resources (p. 21, “wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission of the packet data to the corresponding, respective device based on the determined characteristic of the identified packet data flow.”),
wherein a delay is added to least one data packet to provide a spread of the plurality of data packets (p. 153, “Support of adaptive frame selection: if all queued control frames cannot be scheduled in the current radio frame, then the frames to be scheduled may be selected based on … their waiting time/communication cycle length ratio.” Any packet not scheduled will have added wait time.), wherein the delay of the at least one data packet is added based on the traffic pattern characteristics associated with the plurality of data packets (p. 153, “if the radio scheduler supports the deadline scheduling, the limit of the waiting time of the current control frame may be calculated dynamically based on the packet data flow database information.” The wait time functions as an added delay.). Racz does not specifically detail the delay as an addition. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang teaches wherein a delay is added to least one data packet to provide a spread of the plurality of data packets (p. 17-18, “The first mode of scheduling includes:” “selecting a guard time to be applied in each of the time slots, which guard time (GT) is based on the largest difference, and scheduling each second node for transmitting within a respective time slot of said time slots”.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Racz to incorporate adding delay units from Pang to improve wireless communication efficiency by incorporating delay that implements a guarantee time and thereby ensure the delivery of the packets within a particular timeframe.
Claim 1 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 8 above. Claim 1 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 16, a scheduler entity configured similar to the operations of claim 8 above. Claim 16 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 17, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program is loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit similar to the operations of claim 8 above. Claim 17 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 10, Racz-Pang teaches the scheduler entity according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of radio resources are associated with one or more of: a transmit time interval (TTI) (Racz, p. 2, “The framing structure of the radio may provide ˜100 μs scale TTI (transmission time interval)” in LTE networks,” And p. 22, “the characteristic comprises a communication cycle length of a communication between the node and the corresponding, respective device. The communication cycle length may hereby be set on a per-device basis, i.e. different devices may have different communication cycle lengths.”); a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of the wireless communication network; a transport block size (TBS); and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) supported by the wireless communication network.
Claim 3 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 10 above. Claim 3 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 11, Racz-Pang teaches the scheduler entity according to claim 8, wherein the timing information related to the plurality of radio resources comprises one or more of: a periodicity of each of the plurality of radio resources; and a time interval of each of the plurality of radio resources (Racz, p. 2, “The framing structure of the radio may provide ˜100 μs scale TTI (transmission time interval) …” And p. 28, “The packet data flow database may hereby be configured to store one or more of the flow identifier, a communication cycle length, a status of a previously frame, a flow dependency and a priority of one or both of a last frame or frames and a current frame or frames.”).
Claim 4 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 11 above. Claim 4 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 12, Racz-Pang teaches the scheduler entity according to claim 8, wherein the traffic pattern characteristics comprise one or more of: a time interval between the plurality of data packets; a size of each of the plurality of data packets; and a priority of each of the plurality of data packets (Racz, p. 28, “Scheduling of transmission or transmissions of packet data may hereby be based on previously obtained information stored in the packet data flow database …’ “The packet data flow database may hereby be configured to store one or more of the flow identifier, a communication cycle length, a status of a previously frame, a flow dependency and a priority of one or both of a last frame or frames and a current frame or frames.” And p. 31, “the packet data flow database is configured to store information relating to a transmission priority of the transmission of the packet data, and wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission based on the transmission priority.”).
Claim 5 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 12 above. Claim 5 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 13, Racz-Pang teaches the scheduler entity according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to cause the step of scheduling the plurality of data packets on the plurality of resources of the wireless communication network
receiving the plurality of data packets intended for the one or more industrial devices (Racz, p. 85, “the inspection unit 102 comprises a flow identification and characteristics handling unit 103. This allows the inspection unit 102 to identify a packet data flow and to determine one or more characteristics of the packet data flow and/or packet data.”);
determining the delay for each of the plurality of data packets by analyzing the traffic pattern characteristics, and the timing information related to the plurality of resources (Racz, p. 153, “Support of adaptive frame selection: if all queued control frames cannot be scheduled in the current radio frame, then the frames to be scheduled may be selected based on the … their waiting time/ communication cycle length ratio.” Any packet not scheduled will have added wait time.); and
scheduling the plurality of data packets on the plurality of radio resources in accordance with the delay determined for each of the plurality of data packets (Racz, p. 89, “the packet data flow database 114 is further coupled to a scheduling control 118 for exchanging scheduling assistance information.” And p. 94, “the radio transmission feedback control unit 116 is configured to provide a control frames status, associated with a served control frame, to the packet data flow database 114 for storage in the packet data flow database 114.” See also p. 104, “Scheduling Logic may provide assistance information for the scheduling on the basis of the information stored in the packet data flow database 114.”).
Claim 6 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 13 above. Claim 6 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 14, Racz-Pang teaches the scheduler entity according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to cause the step of scheduling the plurality of data packets in accordance with the delay determined for each of the plurality of data packets (Racz, p. 89, “the packet data flow database 114 is further coupled to a scheduling control 118 for exchanging scheduling assistance information.” And p. 94, “the radio transmission feedback control unit 116 is configured to provide a control frames status, associated with a served control frame, to the packet data flow database 114 for storage in the packet data flow database 114.” See also p. 104, “Scheduling Logic may provide assistance information for the scheduling on the basis of the information stored in the packet data flow database 114.”) by:
selecting a data packet from the plurality of data packets based on the delay associated with each of the plurality of data packets (Racz, p. 153, “Support of adaptive frame selection: if all queued control frames cannot be scheduled in the current radio frame, then the frames to be scheduled may be selected based on the … their waiting time/ communication cycle length ratio.” Any packet not scheduled will have added wait time.);
scheduling the selected data packet on a radio resource from the plurality of radio resources for the transmission of the selected data packet to the one or more industrial devices (Racz, p. 153, “… then the frames to be scheduled may be selected based on the … their waiting time/ communication cycle length ratio.” Any packet not scheduled will have added wait time.); and
buffering one or more data packets according to an order of the delay associated with the one or more data packets for scheduling on the plurality of radio resources (Racz, p. 153, “… if all queued control frames cannot be scheduled in the current radio frame, then the frames to be scheduled may be selected based on the … their waiting time/ communication cycle length ratio.”).
Claim 7 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 14 above. Claim 7 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racz and Pang as applied to claims 1 and 8 and above, and further in view of Gupta et al., US 20190320437 A1 (hereafter referred to as Gupta).
Claim 9, Racz-Pang teaches the scheduler entity according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of radio resources (Racz, p. 182, “Radio resource utilization is automatically optimized for IA traffic characteristics …”) comprises a plurality of transmit-time slots for the transmission of the plurality of data packets to the one or more industrial devices (p. 60, “while the following embodiments may be primarily described for Long Term Evolution (LTE) and 5G implementations…”). Racz does not specifically detail a plurality of transmit-time slots for the transmission of the plurality of data packets to the one or more industrial devices. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gupta teaches comprises a plurality of transmit-time slots for the transmission of the plurality of data packets to the one or more industrial devices (p. 66, “For example, communications over a carrier may be organized according to TTIs or slots, each of which may include user data as well as control information or signaling to support decoding the user data.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Racz-Pang by incorporating transmit time interval slots from Gupta to provide reliable and efficient communications that conforms with stringent latency and reliability requirements.
Claim 2 is a method comprising steps similar to the operations of the scheduling entity of claim 9 above. Claim 2 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pfadler et al, US 20210037495 A1, teaches the determining of the control information may comprise determining the control information for a future time point to at least partly compensate the estimated downlink and uplink delay. The control information may comprise at least one time stamp as time reference for the control information. By generating the control information for application at a future point in time, delays can be compensated at the transportation vehicle as the control information is determined/meant to be applied at a time after its receipt.
Wetterwald et al., US 20160020987 A1, teaches the scheduling device also receives controller metrics for the device controller. The scheduling device determines time costs associated with the network path and one or more control operations performed by the device controller, based on the routing and controller metrics. The scheduling device generates a communication schedule based on the time costs and instructs the device controller and the networked device to use the communication schedule.
Song, US 20180131614 A1, teaches FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a computer-implemented method 500 of packet scheduling by inserting packets into a router queue based on packet latency information, according to an example embodiment. The method 500 includes receiving at block 510 a packet 120 at a router 135 in a network 100. The received packet 120 has latency information 122 indicating a desired latency.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights