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 .
This office action is in response to Application filed 10/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 21-27 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TR 23.700-60, referred to as 3GPP hereon, cited in IDS) in view of Stephenne et al. (US 2016/0227564 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 16, 3GPP discloses a method carried out in an access node of a wireless network for configuring communication of data with a user equipment (UE), an access node of wireless network, the method or an access node comprising:
a transceiver for wireless communication with a user equipment (see page 53, fig. 6.11.3-1, describes a communication between RAN and UE); and
logic circuitry configured to control the access node (see page 53, fig. 6.11.3-1, discloses RAN implementing QoS, i.e. message 12, page 54) to carry out:
obtaining a quality of service (QoS) indicator associated with a data set comprising inter-dependent data, wherein said obtained QoS indicator identifies an increasing reliability level over the data set in time domain (see section page 52, 6.11.2, discloses interdependent data, see page 54, message 12, discloses N2 message to RAN with QoS profile, see also page 66, section 6.14. See page 68-69, fig. 6.14.2.1-3, table 2 and text below table 2, describes for example increasing priority, i.e. reliability level across time);
scheduling resources for communication of the data set with the UE according to said obtained QoS indicator (see page 55, section 6.12.2).
Although 3GPP discloses QoS, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the QoS indicator identifies reliability level.
However, Stephenne discloses wherein the QoS indicator identifies reliability level (para. 0023, discloses QoS indicator identifying reliability level, such as GBR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include a QoS indicator identifying increasing reliability level over the data in time domain.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow changing the QoS for subsequent important packets to allow improving overall quality of experience.
Regarding claim 17, A method carried out in a core network of a wireless network for configuring an access node to handle communication of a data set comprising inter-dependent data, the method comprising:
determining a quality of service (QoS) for use in a flow for communicating the data set (see pages 53-55, messages 1-4, discloses determining QoS for PDU sets, see also section 6.12.2, bullet 1-5);
configuring the access node with the QoS indicator, identifying the QoS, wherein said QoS identifies an increasing reliability level over the data set in time domain, to be targeted by the access node for communication of the data set (see section page 52, 6.11.2, discloses interdependent data, see page 54, message 12, discloses N2 message to RAN with QoS profile. See page 68-69, fig. 6.14.2.1-3, table 2 and text below table 2, describes for example increasing priority, i.e. reliability level across time).
Although 3GPP discloses QoS, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the QoS indicator identifies reliability level.
However, Stephenne discloses wherein the QoS indicator identifies reliability level (para. 0023, discloses QoS indicator identifying reliability level, such as GBR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include a QoS indicator identifying increasing reliability level over the data in time domain.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow changing the QoS for subsequent important packets to allow improving overall quality of experience.
Regarding claims 2, the combination of 3GPP and Lutchoomun discloses the method wherein the scheduling according to the QoS indicator comprises configuring resources to obtain an increase in reliability between at least two successive data units of said data set (See page 68-69, fig. 6.14.2.1-3, table 2 and text below table 2, describes for example increasing priority, i.e. reliability level across time, between two successive packets, see also Stephenne, at para. 0026-0027, discloses selection of resources based on QoS).
Regarding claims 3, 20, 3GPP discloses the method comprising: obtaining data set character information associated with data set, comprising an indication of a total amount of data in the data set, wherein the QoS indicator identifies the increasing reliability level dependent on said total amount (see page 44, section 6.7.3.3, discloses marking the number of PDUs in PDU set and importance).
Regarding claim 4, 18, 3GPP discloses the method wherein the QoS indicator identifies the increasing reliability level dependent on a sequence numbering of data units in the data set (see section 6.7.3.3, fig. 6.7.3.3-1 discloses the higher importance between sequence 13 and 14 frame, i.e. increasing reliability based on sequence numbering).
Regarding claim 5, 19, 3GPP discloses the method wherein the QoS indicator identifies a relative time within the data set for increasing the reliability level (see page 44, fig. 6.7.3.3-1 describes RTP header include the number of PDU set with sequence numbers, i.e. relative time, for increasing the reliability level).
Regarding claim 6, 3GPP discloses the method comprising: receiving an indication to increase the reliability rate after an identified data unit of said data set (see page 44, fig. 6.7.3.3-1 describes RTP header including an indication for change or increase in importance or reliability).
Regarding claim 7, 3GPP discloses the method comprising: obtaining a pattern on increased reliability level, wherein the scheduling is configured dependent on said pattern (see Id. discloses pattern such as increasing or decreasing importance marking for each PDU set).
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP discloses the method wherein said QoS indicator identifies a plurality of reliability levels to be targeted within the data set in an order of increasing reliability (see page 44, fig. 6.7.3.3-1 describes RTP header including identifying at different reliability levels based on importance).
Regarding claim 11, 3GPP discloses the method wherein the scheduling for an initial part of the data set is configured to target a reliability level which is dependent on a content indicator of the data of the data set (see page 44, fig. 6.7.3.3-1 describes scheduling the I frame as high importance).
Regarding claim 13, 3GPP discloses the method comprising: obtaining an indication of priority for respective data units of the data set (see page 44, section 6.7.3.3, describes receiving priority for respective data units); wherein the scheduling provides one of either increased or maintained reliability in time domain between successive data units of the data set, based on said priority (See Id. further discloses maintaining, increasing or decreasing across data set).
Regarding claim 15, 3GPP discloses the method wherein said data set is comprised in a Protocol Data Unit (PDU), PDU, Set, and wherein the scheduling according to the QoS indicator comprises configuring resources to obtain an increase in reliability between at least two successive transport blocks comprising different PDU s of said PDU set (see page 44, section 6.7.3.3).
Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Stephenne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsilimantos et al. (WO 2018/224172, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, 3GPP fails to disclose but Tsilimantos discloses the method wherein the scheduling is configured for a decreasing target error rate in time domain in said data set based on said QoS indicator (see page 12, lines 4-page 13, line 2, discloses increasing or decreasing MCS based as a function of time, thereby by decreasing error rate in time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include wherein the scheduling is configured for a decreasing target error rate in time domain in said data set based on said QoS indicator.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow adjusting the MCS to meet the QoS requirements.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of 3GPP and Tsilimantos discloses the method wherein the scheduling comprises configuring modulation and coding scheme and/or radio resources to target the increasing reliability level based on the QoS indicator (see Tsilimantos at page 12, lines 4-page 14, line 9, discloses based on the importance of packet, such as I frame, and channel quality measure, adjusting the MCS to meet the quality requirement).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Stephenne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2022/0286899 A1).
Regarding claim 8, 3GPP fails to discloses but Ma (US 2022/0286899 A1) discloses the method wherein said QoS indicator identifies an average reliability level for the data set (see para. 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include wherein said QoS indicator identifies an average reliability level for the data set as described by Ma.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow improve the reliability of transmission for high priority traffic.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Stephenne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rashid et al. (US 2010/0002681 A1).
Regarding claim 10, 3GPP fails to disclose but Rashid (US 2010/0002681 A1) discloses the method comprising: obtaining an indication of channel quality between the access node and the UE (see para. 0011, 0018, discloses evaluating CQI); wherein the scheduling is based on said indication of channel quality to obtain the increase in reliability level according to the QoS indicator (see para. 0011, discloses evaluating CQI and selecting MCS based on channel quality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include obtaining channel quality and scheduling data to obtain increase in reliability level.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow adapting the channel condition such that QoS can be achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHANT B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3125. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-6:00 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, Deborah J. Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
NISHANT B. DIVECHA
Supervisory Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights