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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 28, 39, 40, 41, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 28, in lines 3-4, delete “compliant with Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) protocols”. 3GPP protocols include a plurality of past, present, and future protocols. Therefore, it renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 39, in line 1, replace “The base station apparatus of claim 37” with --The base station apparatus of claim 38-- since claim 38 recites modulation and coding scheme value and transport block size which recited in claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, in line 1, replace “The base station apparatus of claim 37” with --The base station apparatus of claim 38-- since claim 38 recites modulation and coding scheme value and transport block size which recited in claim 40.
Regarding claim 41, in lines 3-4, delete “compliant with Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) protocols”. 3GPP protocols include a plurality of past, present, and future protocols. Therefore, it renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 42, in line 2, replace “configuration of is based” with --configuration is based--. Further, in lines 2-3, replace “the randomized process” with --a randomized process--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-28 and 31-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,203 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims of the present application merely broaden the scope of independent claims of US Patent No. 11,483,203 B2 respectively, by eliminating the steps of performing, after the determining of the schedule, a channel quality indicator randomization process, the channel quality indicator randomization process comprising: (i) generating data relating to a plurality of channel quality indicator values associated with a plurality of respective second wireless premises devices; (ii) sending, to each one of the plurality of second wireless premises devices, data representative of a request to stop reporting channel quality indicator values associated with the each of the plurality of second wireless premises devices; (iii) after a prescribed period of time has elapsed since the sending, selecting one or more of the plurality of wireless premises devices via a randomized process; and (iv) increasing respective one or more of the plurality of channel quality indicator values associated with the one or more of the plurality of wireless premises devices by a prescribed amount in order to perturb the schedule and/or receive feedback data from the one or more of the plurality of fixed wireless apparatus; and based on the feedback data, transmit instruction data to the one or more of the plurality of fixed wireless apparatus, the instruction data configured to instruct the one or more of the plurality of fixed wireless apparatus to suspend further transmission of data indicative of a quality of a channel until a subsequent occurrence of an event, the event comprising a subsequent change in at least one of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) or transport block size (TBS) associated with transmission of user plane (UP) data from the base station apparatus to the one or more of the plurality of fixed wireless apparatus via use of the channel.
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same as before. In Re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also, note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al (US 2017/0373789 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Huang discloses a computer readable apparatus comprising a non-transitory storage medium, the non-transitory storage medium comprising at least one computer program having a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions configured to, when executed on a processing apparatus of a base station apparatus of a wireless network (Fig. 7, AP 702 having memory 732 storing instructions and a processor 730 for executing instructions), cause the base station apparatus to:
receive, at the base station apparatus of the wireless network, first data related to respective ones of radio frequency (RF) channels between the base station apparatus and a plurality of wireless premises 10devices (134th paragraph and Fig. 7, station 704 may transmit CQI 755 to access point. CQI 755 indicates CQ value 756 and CQ value 757, one or more additional CQ values. Similarly, the access point may receive CQIs from other stations 703 and 705);
evaluate the first data to generate respective characterizations of the respective ones of the RF channels (142nd paragraph, resource allocation 730 of access point 702 determines a channel quality variation 722 based on CQI 755 and 146th paragraph, channel quality variation is based on multiple CQIs of the CQIs 750);
based at least in part on the respective characterizations, adjusting a configuration of at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices (145th paragraph, access point 702 transmits a first notification to the station 704 and/or station 705 indicating a MCS level and/or second MCS level); and
15determine a schedule of data delivery to the plurality of wireless premises devices, the determination based at least on the characterizations and the adjusted configuration (143rd, 145th and 147th paragraphs, allocating RUs to stations based on channel quality variation and MCS notifications).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Huang discloses that wherein the receipt of the first data comprises receipt of channel quality indicators generated by respective ones of the plurality of wireless premises devices (134th paragraph, station 704 may transmit CQI 755 to access point. CQI 755 indicates CQ value 756 and CQ value 757, one or more additional CQ values. Similarly, the access point may receive CQIs from other stations 703 and 705).
Regarding claims 25, 35, and 38, Huang discloses that wherein the adjustment of the configuration comprises an adjustment of at least one of (i) a modulation and coding scheme value (145th paragraph, access point 702 transmits a first notification to the station 704 and/or station 705 indicating a MCS level and/or second MCS level); or (ii) a transport block size related to the least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices (alternative).
Regarding claim 37, Huang discloses a base station apparatus for use in a wireless network (Fig. 7, AP 702), comprising:
at least one wireless interface (Fig. 7, transceiver 734);
processor apparatus (Fig. 7, processor 730) in data communication with the at least one wireless interface (Fig .7); and storage apparatus (Fig. 7, memory 732) in data communication with the processor apparatus (Fig 7), the storage apparatus comprising at least one computer program configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus (Fig. 7), cause the base station apparatus to:
receive first data related to respective ones of radio frequency (RF) channels between the base station apparatus and a plurality of wireless premises 10devices (134th paragraph and Fig. 7, station 704 may transmit CQI 755 to access point. CQI 755 indicates CQ value 756 and CQ value 757, one or more additional CQ values. Similarly, the access point may receive CQIs from other stations 703 and 705);
evaluate the first data to generate respective characterizations of the respective ones of the RF channels (142nd paragraph, resource allocation 730 of access point 702 determines a channel quality variation 722 based on CQI 755 and 146th paragraph, channel quality variation is based on multiple CQIs of the CQIs 750);
based at least in part on the respective characterizations, adjusting a configuration of at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices (145th paragraph, access point 702 transmits a first notification to the station 704 and/or station 705 indicating a MCS level and/or second MCS level); and
based at least on the characterizations and the adjusted configuration, 15determine a schedule of data delivery to the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices (143rd, 145th and 147th paragraphs, allocating RUs to stations based on channel quality variation and MCS notifications).
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.
Claims 26, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Fakoorian et al (US 2020/0169962 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 39, Huang discloses transmitting a first notification to the station 704 and/or station 705 indicating a MCS level and/or second MCS level (145th paragraph). Huang does not disclose that wherein the adjustment of the at least one of (i) the modulation and coding scheme value or (ii) the transport block size comprises: an 10increase of the modulation and coding scheme value by a first amount; transmission of data to the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices via use of the increased modulation and coding scheme value; a determination that data representative of a retransmission request for the transmitted data is received from the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices; and 15based at least on the determination that the data representative of the retransmission request is received, causation of a decrease of the modulation and coding scheme value by a second amount. Fakoorian discloses that the base station may detect an ACK and set a positive backoff to its MCS (0.001dB, 0.002dB, 0.003dB) for its transmission and when the base station detects a NACK (indicating retransmission in HARQ) then the base station set a negative backoff to its MCS (132nd paragraph and Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to increase MCS and decrease MCS due to retransmission in Huang’s system, as suggested by Joseph, to enable reliable data transmission.
Regarding claim 36, Huang discloses transmitting a first notification to the station 704 and/or station 705 indicating a MCS level and/or second MCS level (145th paragraph). Huang does not disclose that wherein the adjustment of the at least one of (i) the modulation and coding scheme value or (ii) the transport block size comprises: a decrease of the modulation and coding scheme value by a first amount; and transmission of data to the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices via use of the decrease modulation and coding scheme value. Fakoorian discloses that the base station may detect an ACK and set a positive backoff to its MCS (0.001dB, 0.002dB, 0.003dB) for its transmission and when the base station detects a NACK (indicating retransmission in HARQ) then the base station set a negative backoff to its MCS (132nd paragraph and Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to increase MCS and decrease MCS due to retransmission in Huang’s system, as suggested by Joseph, to enable reliable data transmission.
Claims 27 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Leroux et al (WO/2021014197 A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 40, Huang discloses transmitting a first notification to the station 704 and/or station 705 indicating a MCS level and/or second MCS level (145th paragraph). Huang does not disclose that that wherein the adjustment of the at least one of (i) the modulation and coding scheme value or (ii) the transport block size comprises: an 10increase of the modulation and coding scheme value by a first amount; transmission of data to the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices using the increased modulation and coding scheme value; a determination that data representative of a retransmission request for the transmitted data is not received from the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices for a prescribed duration of time; and 15based at least on the determination that the data representative of the retransmission request is not received for the prescribed duration of time, causation of an increase of the modulation and coding scheme value further. Leroux discloses that the network node may increase MCS until max MCS is reached due to receiving ACK for multiple downlink transmissions (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to increase MCS to the maximum in Huang’s system, as suggested by Leroux, to maximize transmissions efficiency.
Claims 28 and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of the admitted prior art as discloses in pages 1-9 of the specification. Hereinafter, refer to as Huang and APA.
Regarding claims 28 and 41, Huang discloses a network for scheduling stations based on CQIs (Fig 7). 10 Huang does not disclose that wherein the base station apparatus comprises a Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) Citizens 15Broadband Service Device (CBSD) compliant with Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) protocols; the respective ones of the RF channels each comprise channels using a CBRS frequency assigned to the CBSD by a spectrum allocation system (SAS); and 20the at least one of the plurality of wireless premises devices comprises a CBRS fixed wireless apparatus (FWA) apparatus. APA discloses a CBRS based CPE architecture compliant with 3GPP protocols including a base station as well as CPE/FWA (page 7 and Fig. 4). APA discloses that the channels are within the band of 3.550 to 3.700 GHz and coordinated by SAS (Figs. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include CBRS architecture in Huang’s system, as suggested by APA, to share spectrum between government and commercial interests.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding claim 42, Huang discloses adjusting the transmit power level of a station among the stations (243rd paragraph). Huang does not disclose selection of the station via a randomized process. However, as known in the art, in the field of testing, a wireless station is randomly chosen to be tested for channel quality interference and power is dynamically adjusted due to interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include selecting a device randomly for configuration and/or reconfiguration in Huang’s system to optimize network efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, 33, and 34 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
Sevindik et al (US Patent No. 12,095,613 B2), same assignee, discloses scheduling enhancer (Figs. 10-13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights