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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 1B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, and 7C contain illegible text.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, 15, 25-26, and 30-37 are 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.
Claims 1, 25, and 26 recite the limitation “in response to it is determined to configure multiple pieces of scheduling identification information.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “claim 5.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner has construed the claim to be dependent on claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a maximum value among.” It is unclear what “among” means in this context.
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 25-26, and 30-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach (US 20230164081 A1) in view of Bae (US 20230092206 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rossbach discloses:
“A control-side electronic device in a wireless communication system, wherein the control-side electronic device is capable of performing multi-stream data transmission with a terminal-side electronic device in the wireless communication system, and the control-side electronic device comprises a processing circuit which is configured to: determine an amount of scheduling identification information configured for the terminal-side electronic device, based on data transmission characteristics of data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission; in response to it is determined to configure multiple pieces of scheduling identification information, associate the multiple pieces of scheduling identification information with multiple data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission…” ([¶ 0053]: “In particular, with respect to QoS classification 200, the UPF 112 may identify packets of a first ADU (ADU #1) that correspond to an I-frame and packets of a second ADU (ADU #2) that correspond to a P-frame. Both ADUs may belong to a common packet flow (packet flow #1). The UPF 112 may map ADU #1 to a first QoS flow (for example, QoS flow 1a) and may map ADU #2 to a second QoS flow (for example, QoS flow 1b) based on a PDR. In this manner, different packets of a packet flow may be mapped to different QoS flows based on the ADUs with which the individual packets are associated.”)
Rossbach does not explicitly disclose “for a specific data stream in the multi-stream data transmission, combine scheduling identification information associated with the specific data stream and control information for scheduling the specific data stream for transmission of the specific data stream.”
However, Bae discloses the missing feature “for a specific data stream in the multi-stream data transmission, combine scheduling identification information associated with the specific data stream and control information for scheduling the specific data stream for transmission of the specific data stream.” ([¶ 0098]: “A SPS configuration may be activated by an activation DCI that in general may be any of the DCI formats that schedule a DG-PDSCH with some additional validation mechanism performed. Compared to a DCI scheduling a DG-PDSCH, an SPS activation DCI may be scrambled by a configured grant radio network temporary identifier (CS-RNTI) and some specific DCI fields may be specially used for identification of SPS activation, including new data indicator (NDI), hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number (HPN) and redundancy version (RV).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Rossbach and Bae, to modify the technique as disclosed by Rossbach, to utilize combined scheduling and control information as disclosed by Bae. The motivation for doing so is that it improves efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rossbach with Bae to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach further discloses “wherein the data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission comprise data streams in at least one of uplink data transmission and downlink data transmission, and wherein, the data transmission characteristics comprise data periodicities and/or data size characteristics of the data streams, and/or wherein the data streams include an I stream and/or a P stream, and the data transmission characteristics comprise data periodicities and/or data size characteristics of the I stream and/or the P stream included in the data streams.” ([¶ 0105]: “A third option for defining an RTP payload-based condition may include using an RTP hint track to indicate the ADU mapping information such as, for example, an ADU type, an ADU start/end, format, size, etc.”)
Regarding claim 3, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach further discloses “wherein the data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission comprise data streams in at least one of uplink data transmission and downlink data transmission, and wherein, the data transmission characteristics comprise data periodicities and/or data size characteristics of the data streams, and/or wherein the data streams include an I stream and/or a P stream, and the data transmission characteristics comprise data periodicities and/or data size characteristics of the I stream and/or the P stream included in the data streams.” ([¶ 0105]: “A third option for defining an RTP payload-based condition may include using an RTP hint track to indicate the ADU mapping information such as, for example, an ADU type, an ADU start/end, format, size, etc.”)
Regarding claim 4, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach further discloses “wherein the data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission comprise data streams in one of uplink data transmission and downlink data transmission, and wherein, the amount of scheduling identification information is determined based on the number of data streams having specific data transmission characteristics in one of the uplink data transmission and the downlink data transmission, and wherein the specific data transmission characteristics comprise non-fixed data size and/or periodicity or quasi-periodicity, and/or wherein the data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission comprise data streams in both of uplink data transmission and downlink data transmission, and wherein, the amount of scheduling identification information is determined based on a combination of the number of data streams having specific data transmission characteristics in the uplink data transmission and the number of data streams having specific data transmission characteristics in the downlink data transmission, and wherein the specific data transmission characteristics comprise non-fixed data size and/or periodicity or quasi-periodicity.” ([¶ 0029]: “There may be a number of potential areas of development with respect to application awareness in RAN or CN operation. For example, it may be beneficial for a next-generation node B (gNB) or user plane function (UPF) to identify XR traffic characteristics and application layer attributes to be aware of QoS flow association, frame-level QoS, ADU-based QoS, and XR-specific QoS. Further, application layer information such as, for example, frame rate, delay, and packet importance, may aid XR-specific handling (for example, scheduling and radio bearer handling). Embodiments of the present disclosure describe aspects to facilitate network node's awareness of ADUs to enable enhanced QoS through the network.”)
Regarding claim 7, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: associate at least two pieces of scheduling identification information with data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission according to arrangement order of the scheduling identification information, and/or set association pairs between the data streams and the scheduling identification information when the scheduling identification information is configured.”
However, Bae discloses the missing feature “wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: associate at least two pieces of scheduling identification information with data streams included in the multi-stream data transmission according to arrangement order of the scheduling identification information, and/or set association pairs between the data streams and the scheduling identification information when the scheduling identification information is configured.” ([¶ 0371]: “In some cases, a typical structure of frames may be in a certain form, e.g., I-frame then P-frame then B-frame. In that case, the implicit structure may be to schedule N.sub.I TBs first for the I-frame, then N.sub.P TBs second for the P-frame, and lastly N.sub.B TBs for the B-frame. Then, the values of N.sub.I, N.sub.P and N.sub.B may be indicated. In one case, the structure may be explicitly indicated via a scheduling DCI, or they may be RRC configured. In another alternative, the values may be fixed, while a DCI indication is used to indicate the (lack of) existence of the frame.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Rossbach and Bae, to modify the technique as disclosed by Rossbach, to associate identifications with order as disclosed by Bae. The motivation for doing so is that it improves flexibility and efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rossbach with Bae to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach further discloses “associate scheduling identification information with scheduling configurations for data streams, and for a specific data stream in the multi-stream data transmission, associate the scheduling identification information associated with the scheduling configuration for the specific data stream and control information about the scheduling configuration for the specific data stream.” ([¶ 0144]: “The operation flow/algorithmic structure 900 may further include, at 912, transmitting the packets over an access network based on the ADU rules. For example, the AN may identify a set of packets of an ADU and a type of the ADU and may perform scheduling/segmentation/concatenation decisions with respect to the set based on the membership of the set and the ADU type.”)
Regarding claim 9, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach does not explicitly disclose “wherein the scheduling configurations for data streams comprise semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) and/or configure grant (CG), and wherein the control-side electronic device sets corresponding control information for the semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) and/or configure grant (CG) for the data streams respectively.”
However, Bae discloses the missing feature “wherein the scheduling configurations for data streams comprise semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) and/or configure grant (CG), and wherein the control-side electronic device sets corresponding control information for the semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) and/or configure grant (CG) for the data streams respectively.” ([¶ 0002]: “The subject matter disclosed herein generally relates to wireless communication systems. More specifically, the subject matter disclosed herein relates to enhancements to Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) to match XR traffic, which include power savings and/or resource utilization when delivering XR traffic, and Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) enhancements related to XR traffic and SPS configurations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Rossbach and Bae, to modify the technique as disclosed by Rossbach, to utilize SPS as disclosed by Bae. The motivation for doing so is that it improves flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rossbach with Bae to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach does not explicitly disclose “for a data stream in the multi-flow data transmission that is not associated with the scheduling identification information, configure resources for the data stream through resource configuration signaling (RRC) for transmission.”
However, Bae discloses the missing feature “for a data stream in the multi-flow data transmission that is not associated with the scheduling identification information, configure resources for the data stream through resource configuration signaling (RRC) for transmission.” ([¶ 0100]: “An NR specification introduced configured grant (CG) uplink transmission, which enables the UL transmission without dynamic grant and may support an ultra-reliable and low latency communication (URLLC). FIGS. 7A and 7B respectively depicts two types of Grant Free configuration schemes supported in NR. In particular, FIG. 7A depicts a configured grant Type 1 in which an uplink grant may be provided by RRC, and may be stored as configured uplink grant. FIG. 7B depicts a configured grant Type 2 in which an uplink grant may be provided by PDCCH, and may be stored or cleared as configured uplink grant based on L1 signaling indicating configured uplink grant activation or deactivation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Rossbach and Bae, to modify the technique as disclosed by Rossbach, to utilize RRC as disclosed by Bae. The motivation for doing so is that it improves flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rossbach with Bae to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach does not explicitly disclose “transmit the control information and the combined scheduling identification information through radio resource control signaling when multi-stream data transmission is started; or adjust the scheduling configuration for data streams based on a data transmission condition during data transmission, wherein the data transmission condition includes at least one of a packet size, a jitter, and a data scheduling condition of a data stream.”
However, Bae discloses the missing feature “transmit the control information and the combined scheduling identification information through radio resource control signaling when multi-stream data transmission is started; or adjust the scheduling configuration for data streams based on a data transmission condition during data transmission, wherein the data transmission condition includes at least one of a packet size, a jitter, and a data scheduling condition of a data stream.” ([¶ 0119]: “Packet arrival times may be quasi-periodic with periodic mean arrival time and jitter distribution in determining the actual arrival times. This may be an issue for legacy SPS configurations due to the following situations. SPS periodicities may not be aligned well with mean arrival times, which may create a mismatch between SPS occasions and actual packet arrival times. The jittery nature of packet arrival times may prevent a gNB from finding a suitable SPS occasion for the delivery of the packet within delay budget.”; [¶ 0146]: “An alternative scheme may be when a time-domain pattern is applied per SPS configuration. This may provide more flexibility for a gNB to match the applicable occasions with the new traffic characteristics.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Rossbach and Bae, to modify the technique as disclosed by Rossbach, to adjust the scheduling based on characteristics such as jitter as disclosed by Bae. The motivation for doing so is that it improves flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rossbach with Bae to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach further discloses “preset activation information about a specific scheduling configuration for a data stream, so that a state of the scheduling configuration is automatically switched when an activation condition indicated by the activation information expires, wherein the activation information includes an activation time, or an number of activation cycles, or an index value indicating the activation time or the number of activation cycles, for the specific scheduling configuration, and/or wherein the activation information is indicated by a bit newly added in the control information or by an existing bit in the control information.” ([¶ 0077]: “An RTP header-based condition for a packet filter set may be defined by one or more of the following eight options. Aspects of these options may be used separately or combined with aspects of other options as desired for a particular embodiment.”)
Regarding claim 15, Rossbach in view of Bae discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Rossbach does not explicitly disclose “configure a search space, in which the terminal-side device performs detection, to include all configured scheduling identification information.”
However, Bae discloses the missing feature “configure a search space, in which the terminal-side device performs detection, to include all configured scheduling identification information.” ([¶ 0213]: “FIG. 23 depicts an example scenario of a DCI configuration that may be in the form of a CORESET like configuration, and where the location of the CORESET in time/frequency locations is given with respect to the SPS PDSCH occasion according to the subject matter disclosed herein. The information, for example, may be typically given as per the associated search space set in regular DCI configuration.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Rossbach and Bae, to modify the technique as disclosed by Rossbach, to configure search spaces as disclosed by Bae. The motivation for doing so is that it improves flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rossbach with Bae to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 25-26 and 30-37 are substantially similar to claims 1, 7-8, and 12-13 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, of the closest prior arts Rossbach (US 20230164081 A1) in view of Bae (US 20230092206 A1) discloses all of the features of the parent claim. However, Rossbach in view of Bae does not disclose “wherein the amount of the scheduling identification information corresponds to a maximum value among the number of data streams of non-fixed data size included in the uplink data transmission and the number of data streams of non-fixed data size included in the downlink data transmission, or the amount of the scheduling identification information corresponds to a maximum value among the number of periodic or quasi-periodic data streams included in the uplink data transmission and the number of periodic or quasi-periodic data streams included in the downlink data transmission.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 6 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 11, of the closest prior arts Rossbach (US 20230164081 A1) in view of Bae (US 20230092206 A1) discloses all of the features of the parent claim. However, Rossbach in view of Bae does not disclose “wherein the data stream not associated with the scheduling identification information includes a periodic downlink data stream of fixed size, and for the scheduling configuration (SPS) of the periodic downlink data stream of fixed size, resources are configured through resource configuration signaling (RRC), for transmission.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 6 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights