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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of at least “optimizing the UL and DL slots and symbols distribution based on a combination of maximizing a sum of UL and DL BA throughput” as recited in claim 9.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendment) A method comprising:
creating, at a base station (BS), BS-level features characterizing operation of the BS;
determining, at the BS, an uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) slots and symbols distribution in view of the BS-level features that balances latency and throughput of a network in which the BS is operating; and
determining, at the BS, an arrangement of the UL and DL slots and symbols distribution that balances inter-slot delay and guard period overhead.
9. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 8, further comprising optimizing the UL and DL slots and symbols distribution based on a combination of maximizing a sum of UL and DL BA throughput, minimizing network latency, wherein the network latency is estimated as a highest buffer occupancy level of UEs served by the BS, and avoiding data loss, wherein the data loss is approximated as a buffer overflow tendency of radio link control (RLC) queues for the UEs served by the BS.
17. (Proposed Amendment) A system, comprising:
a base station (BS)-level feature engineering module determining BS-level features based on raw BS log data, the BS-level features characterizing a radio access network (RAN) context;
a RAN context-aware resource forecasting module predicting a time division duplex (TDD) policy reflecting uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) slots and symbols distribution based on the RAN context;
a TDD policy smoothing module configured to mitigate impact of abrupt TDD policy changes on application quality of experience (QoE) based on the predicted TDD policy resulting in a smoothed TDD policy; and
a quality of service (QoS)-aware TDD policy derivation module computing an arrangement of UL and DL slots and symbols within a TDD pattern further including one or more guard periods according to which the BS assigns UL and DL radio resources based on the smoothed TDD policy.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, therefore they are also objected.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17, therefore it is also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a base station (BS)-level feature engineering module determining BS-level features based on raw BS log data, the BS-level features characterizing a radio access network (RAN) context; a RAN context-aware resource forecasting module predicting a time division duplex (TDD) policy reflecting uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) slots and symbols distribution based on the RAN context; a TDD policy smoothing module to mitigate impact of abrupt TDD policy changes on application quality of experience (QoE) based on the predicted TDD policy resulting in a smoothed TDD policy; and a quality of service (QoS)-aware TDD policy derivation module computing an arrangement of UL and DL slots and symbols within a TDD pattern further including one or more guard periods according to which the BS assigns UL and DL radio resources based on the smoothed TDD policy recited in claim 17 are generic placeholders. For example, the term “module” paired with functional language “determining BS-level features” creates a rebuttable presumption limitation because “module” acts as a generic structural placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5, 7-16, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 5 (lines 2 and 4), claim 7 (lines 1-2), claim 16 (line 3), claim 19 (line12), and claim 20 (lines 3 and 6), the phrases “the BS’s resources”, “the BS’s total resource utilization”, “the BS’s cumulative buffering tolerance”, “the cumulative buffering tolerance”, and “the UL and DL slots and symbols distribution” all lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 2, “BA” is undefined. Without defining the meaning of “BA”, claim 9 is unclear.
Claims 8 and 10-15 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 7, therefore they are also rejected.
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 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0367289 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
Kim illustrates a base station 102 in FIG. 4 in communication with a wireless user equipment (UE) device 106. The base station 102 may include processor(s) 404 which may execute program instructions for the base station 102. The processor(s) 404 may also be coupled to memory management unit (MMU) 440, which may be configured to receive addresses from the processor(s) 404 and translate those addresses to locations in memory (e.g., memory 460 and read only memory (ROM) 450) or to other circuits or devices. The base station 102 may include at least one network port 470. The network port 470 may be configured to couple to a telephone network and provide a plurality of devices, such as UE devices 106, access to the telephone network as described above in FIGS. 1 and 2. The network port 470 (or an additional network port) may also or alternatively be configured to couple to a cellular network, e.g., a core network of a cellular service provider. The core network may provide mobility related services and/or other services to a plurality of devices, such as UE devices 106. In some cases, the network port 470 may couple to a telephone network via the core network, and/or the core network may provide a telephone network (e.g., among other UE devices serviced by the cellular service provider). The base station 102 may include at least one antenna 434, and possibly multiple antennas. The antenna(s) 434 may be configured to operate as a wireless transceiver and may be further configured to communicate with UE devices 106 via radio 430. The antenna 434 communicates with the radio 430 via communication chain 432. Communication chain 432 may be a receive chain, a transmit chain or both. The radio 430 may be configured to communicate via various wireless telecommunication standards, including, but not limited to, NR, LTE, LTE-A, UMTS, CDMA2000, Wi-Fi, etc.
The BS 102 may be configured to communicate wirelessly using multiple wireless communication standards. In some instances, the base station 102 may include multiple radios, which may enable the base station 102 to communicate according to multiple wireless communication technologies. For example, as one possibility, the base station 102 may include a NR radio for performing communication according to NR as well as a Wi-Fi radio for performing communication according to Wi-Fi. In such a case, the base station 102 may be capable of operating as both a NR base station and a Wi-Fi access point. As another possibility, the base station 102 may include a multi-mode radio, which is capable of performing communications according to any of multiple wireless communication technologies (e.g., NR and Wi-Fi; NR and LTE; LTE and CDMA2000; UMTS and GSM; etc.).
The invention is related to TDD configuration that may be dynamically and/or semi-statically signaled to user equipment devices by a base station. Semi-static TDD configuration for 5G-NR may include: an initial portion for downlink transmission; a flexible portion; and a terminal portion for uplink transmission. TDD structure of the flexible portion may be determined later by transmission of dynamic physical layer configuration information such as downlink control information (DCI) and/or slot format indicator (SFI). (The SFI may be included in a group common PDCCH of a slot.) The downlink portion and/or the uplink portion may include subsets whose nominal transmit direction is subject to override by transmission of dynamic physical layer configuration information.
Regarding claim 1, the method recited in claim 1 is not new in the art because dynamic time division duplexing (TDD) slot/symbol configuration, balancing latency/throughput, and managing guard period overhead based on base station metrics are already well-established techniques in modern 4G LTE and 5G NR wireless communications. For example, Kim’s 5G New Radio (NR) natively supports flexible and dynamic TDD pattern adaptations where base stations configure uplink and downlink slots and symbols on the fly, in other word, the core concept of determining and arranging Uplink (UL) and Downlink (DL) slots and symbols at the base station is the foundational design of 5G NR. Further, balancing latency against throughput and inter-slot delay against guard period overhead using local base station operational features is standard practice in adaptive radio resource management and packet scheduling algorithms because base stations regularly adjust these patterns based on traffic loads to balance response times (latency) against total data capacity (throughput).
For the technical concept of the claim that refers to the TDD pattern (or Slot Format) of UL and DL slots/symbols distribution: The BS dictates which symbols in a specific time slot are used for receiving data (UL) and which are for sending (DL). Allocating more slots to DL increases download speeds (throughput), while allocating more to UL reduces transmission waits (latency).
For the technical concept of the claim of the guard period overhead: When switching a transceiver from transmitting (DL) to receiving (UL), the base station must insert a Guard Period (GP) to prevent signals from colliding as they travel over the air. If a BS switches directions too frequently, it increases overhead and wastes bandwidth; and if it switches too rarely, it increases inter-slot delay (waiting for a turn to transmit).
Although Kim does not explicitly show or teach the step of creating, at a base station (BS), BS-level features characterizing operation of the BS, creating BS-level operational features is inherent, conventional, or an insubstantial routine optimization already present or implied by Kim. In other words, a base station inherently relies on internal operational metrics (like traffic or channel state) to perform its resource distribution. For example, gathering base station parameters to adjust slot distribution is standard design practice for a person of ordinary skill in the art and extracting internal parameters is merely a direct antecedent step for the disclosed balancing functions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art by Kim to create BS-level features characterizing operation of the BS prior the operation of determining the uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) slots and symbols distribution in view of the BS-level features that balances latency and throughput of a network in which the BS is operating in order to improv the network performance by dynamically responding to operating conditions and select routine operational data collection represents an obvious implementation detail to achieve predictable balancing of latency and throughput.
Regarding claim 2, collecting raw input files or event logs at a base station (BS) and extracting specific numerical indicators or features from them is a foundational step in any monitoring, machine learning, or analytics pipeline. Further, as described in the independent claim 1 which claim 2 depends from, it is an obvious design choice because independent claim 1 is already known in the prior art, or the step relies on well-known computer processes.
Regarding claim 3, combining traffic demand, load, channel quality, and QoS metrics represents standard, well-known operational parameters in wireless communications because telecommunication systems and base stations (BS) have long monitored traffic demand, load balancing, channel state, and QoS parameters concurrently for resource allocation, and merging these known base-station metrics is viewed as an expected, routine aggregation of individual features rather than an inventive step that yields unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, it is not new in the art by combining standard queueing and telemetry metrics (buffer occupancy, arrival rates, delays) through a basic mathematical operation (concatenation) because using average/maximum buffer levels, arrival rates, and head-of-line delays covers standard base station (BS) performance indicators already well-known in telecommunications, concatenating separate metric arrays into a single composite vector is a standard engineering practice for feeding data into machine learning or optimization algorithms, and the combined vector yields no unpredictable or surprising technical outcome compared to monitoring the individual parameters separately.
Regarding claim 5, it is also not new in the art by combining routine mathematical normalization and standard performance metrics (uplink throughput per user and resource utilization) well-established in prior wireless communications art because merging normalized user throughput with total resource usage amounts to standard performance monitoring and using a vector format to group these known base station load variables offers no unexpected technical results.
Regarding claim 6, it is also not new in the art, using statistical vectors and percentiles to represent channel quality indicator (CQI) values is a routine mathematical optimization of known feedback methods in wireless communications because using vectors or arrays of values (like percentiles) to summarize a data distribution is standard data processing and combining standard vector representation with standard CQI metrics yields predictable results without an unexpected technical breakthrough. Further, wireless systems like LTE and 5G already process wideband and subband CQI reporting, statistical distributions, and signal metrics as collections or vectors of data, simply applying a statistical tool (percentiles) to format known radio feedback data is viewed as a routine choice of design rather than a new invention.
Regarding claim 7, it is also not new in the art because traditional wireless systems track individual buffer sizes or per-UE QoS parameters (like delay or jitter bounds), and summing or aggregating buffer metrics across users is a standard mathematical operation in network optimization, or aggregating load or buffer states at the base station.
Regarding claim 8, it is also not new in the art, applying reinforcement learning (RL) to base station (BS) features for resource allocation is a well-established technique in prior wireless communications art because prior art extensively uses RL algorithms (like Q-learning or Deep Q-Networks) to dynamically adjust uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) time-division duplex (TDD) configurations, slots, and symbol distributions. Applying generic machine learning or RL to standard base station inputs (traffic load, channel quality, queue length) is treated as an obvious optimization of known computational methods and merely stating that RL is applied to BS-level features does not introduce a specialized, unconventional architecture or an unexpected technical result beyond standard network optimization.
Regarding claim 10, it is also not new in the art, using a neural network for reinforcement learning (RL) with standard wireless network parameters (traffic demand, base station load, channel quality, and QoS) over past time steps is standard practice in the conventional art because feeding traffic metrics, base station (BS) load, channel state, and quality of service (QoS) requirements into a deep reinforcement learning state vector is a routine formulation in wireless network optimization, using a window of past time steps (history) to capture temporal dynamics and non-stationary traffic trends is a standard design choice solved via conventional recurrent or feedforward architectures, and combining these well-known features and modeling the policy with a standard neural network represents an incremental design choice rather than an inventive step over existing literature.
Regarding claim 11, it is also not new in the art, using reinforcement learning (RL) to predict actions from state inputs and optimizing uplink (UL) resource allocations like slot/symbol distributions is already standard practice in prior wireless communication art because using states, actions, and rewards in an RL loop is basic textbook knowledge and lacks an inventive step on its own, prior research and patents already apply machine learning and RL to dynamically adjust uplink/downlink slot formats and symbol ratios based on traffic states, and adapting a generic machine learning prediction step to output a known metric (percentage distribution of slots and symbols) is considered an obvious choice for a person of skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, applying a smoothing technique to predicted actions for smoother uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) slot/symbol transitions is not new in the art, as standard filtering and heuristic transition penalties are well known in optimization and machine learning control because applying smoothing filters (like moving averages or exponential smoothing) to raw gNB or agent outputs is a textbook method to prevent abrupt physical-layer toggling, penalizing frequent switching or abrupt state changes in reward functions (regularization) inherently achieves this smoothing effect on predicted actions, and dynamic TDD systems routinely enforce guard periods or gradual pattern shifts rather than jumping blindly between extreme UL/DL configurations.
Regarding claim 13, the dual-stage exponential moving average and window normalization technique is not new in the art, because combining multiple moving averages with time-window scaling represents standard math in signal processing, using a first and second exponential smoothing operation (double smoothing) is a standard method to track both level and trend, and normalizing data values or moving averages over a specific time window is a routine step in time-series analysis and statistics.
Regarding claim 14, it is also not new in the art, because balancing inter-slot delay (latency) and guard period overhead (spectrum efficiency) in Time Division Duplex (TDD) systems has long been a standard multi-objective optimization goal in cellular scheduling and using a normalized weight or weighted cost function to find an operational minimum between competing physical-layer metrics is a standard mathematical approach in prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 7-16, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sahara et al. (US 2011/0075749 A1) relates to a base station that removes a guard interval from an OFDM symbol received from a Personal Handy phone System (PHS) terminal through a timing correction channel at two different timings to obtain two effective symbols, calculates a timing correction amount by including one timing, at which an guard interval is removed for the effective symbol that has caused detection of one correlation peak within a predetermined timing detection range of two correlation peaks detected from the respective effective symbols, into a differential from reference timing of the base station at the time of detection of the one correlation peak, and transmits the timing correction amount to the PHS terminal by means of a timing correction burst.
Liao et al. (US 2019/0014576 A1) relates to a flexible radio frame structure for both FDD and TDD is proposed. Under the flexible frame structure, each radio frame consists of a plurality of slots, and each slot within a radio frame has a flexible slot type. As a basic scheduling unit, each slot can be configured by the base station via physical layer signaling. The slot type can be changed dynamically based on current system needs to support different DL/UL ratios and latency requirements. With the support of different slot types and asynchronous DL/UL HARQ operation, HARQ operation for DL/UL can share the same HARQ timing to simplify the system design and reduce implementation complexity.
Kim (US 2023/0133352 A1) relates to a method for accessing a NR cell includes: receiving, by a terminal from a base station, a System Information Block 1; determining, by the terminal, a preamble format and a subframe and a starting symbol based on the prach-Configuration-Index included in the first RACH-ConfigCommon if the second RACH-ConfigCommon is not included in the ServingCellConfigCommon and the prach-ConfigurationIndex included in the second RACH-ConfigCommon if the second RACH-ConfigCommon is included in the ServingCellConfigCommon; and transmitting, by the terminal, the preamble based at least in part on the preamble format and the subframe and the starting symbol.
FU et al. (US 2023/0292308 A1) relates to TDD and FDD systems. In a TDD system, a BS may configure UL and DL attributes in different time resources on a carrier by semi-static signaling and dynamic signaling, namely UL transmission slots/symbols, DL transmission slots/symbols, and flexible slots/symbols. In an FDD system, the BS may configure different time resources of a UL carrier as UL transmission slots/symbols or flexible slots/symbols, and different time resources of a DL carrier as DL transmission slots/symbols or flexible slots/symbols among a pair of the UL carrier and the DL carrier, respectively.
DEOGUN et al. (US 2025/0343667 A1) relates to a method includes: receiving, from an access network node, an indication for indicating at least one-time resource, of a plurality of time resources, that is to be used for full duplex communication; determining, based on the indication, resources within the at least one-time resource, for which communication is not performed; and adjusting communication with the access network node based on the determining.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights