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 on 05/13/2026 with respect to claim(s) 25-44, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to objection to Abstract have been fully considered and in view of arguments Examiner further clarified the objection as being elaborated below. Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and they are persuasive in view of amendments, hence said objections and rejection have been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Disclosure of pending Application on page 21, second paragraph recites “Figure YY2 illustrates”, however should recite “Figure 6 illustrates”. Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because currently Abstract of the published Application is as follows:
“Network equipment (20) in a communication network (10) jointly adapts time division duplexing, TDD, patterns of 2024/022598 respective cells (16) in the communication network (10), based on performance (40) of the TDD patterns (30) in combination. Based on the adapted TDD patterns (30), the network equipment (20) jointly schedules communication devices (11) served by the cells (16). In some embodiments, joint TDD pattern adaptation is performed in an outer closed loop whereas the joint scheduling is performed in an inner closed loop, e.g., that operates on a faster timescale than the outer closed loop.” (please see US Publication 20260046186 A1, of the pending application). Hence the number 2024/022598 should be removed from the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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:
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.
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.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueck (WIPO Publication WO 2017/172100 A1).
As per claim 42, Mueck discloses network equipment configured for use in a communication network (Mueck, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, and paragraphs 2, 15 and 53), the network equipment comprising:
communication circuitry (Mueck, Fig. 8); and
processing circuitry (Mueck, Fig. 8:808, and paragraph 42-43) configured to:
jointly adapt time division duplexing (TDD) patterns of respective cells in the communication network, based on performance of the TDD patterns in combination (Mueck, Fig. 9, and paragraphs 55, 62, 67-68, 87 and 89); and
based on the jointly adapted TDD patterns, jointly schedule communication devices served by the respective cells (Mueck, Fig. 9, and paragraphs 76-79, 87 and 89).
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.
Claim(s) 25, 27, 29-37, and 39-41, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueck (WIPO Publication WO 2017/172100 A1) and further in view of Liu (US PGPUB 2023/0327844 A1).
As per claim 25, Mueck discloses a method performed by network equipment in a communication network (Mueck, Fig. 9, and paragraphs 2, 15 and 53), the method comprising:
jointly adapting time division duplexing (TDD) patterns of respective cells in the communication network, based on performance of the TDD patterns in combination (Mueck, Fig. 9, and paragraphs 55, 62, 67-68, 87 and 89); and
based on the jointly adapted TDD patterns, jointly scheduling communication devices served by the respective cells (Muck, paragraphs Mueck, Fig. 9, and paragraphs 76-79, 87 and 89),
Mueck does not explicitly disclose wherein the TDD patterns are jointly adapted less often than the communication devices are jointly scheduled.
Liu discloses wherein the TDD patterns are jointly adapted less often than the communication devices are jointly scheduled (Liu, paragraphs 72-74, and 129-130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueck teachings by implementing a joint schedular to the system, as taught by Liu.
The motivation would be to provide a communication system with improved coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency (paragraph 37), as taught by Liu.
As per claim 27, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly adapting the TDD patterns comprises selecting, from different candidate combinations of TDD patterns, a combination of TDD patterns with which to configure the respective cells, based on respective performances of the different candidate combinations of TDD patterns (Liu, paragraphs 46 and 70-75), and wherein jointly scheduling the communication devices comprises selecting, from different candidate combinations of schedules in the respective cells, as configured with the selected combination of TDD patterns, a combination of schedules with which to schedule communication devices served by the respective cells (Liu, paragraphs 70-75), wherein a schedule in a cell indicates resources allocated across communication devices served by the cell and/or parameters for transmission to and/or from communication devices served by the cell (Liu, paragraphs 45, 48, and paragraphs 128-131).
As per claim 29, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly adapting the TDD patterns comprises jointly adapting the TDD patterns based on a metric characterizing the performance of the TDD patterns in combination (Mueck, paragraphs 84 and 103), wherein the metric characterizes the performance as a function of one or more of:
interference between the respective cells as configured with the TDD patterns;
sum-throughput of the respective cells as configured with the TDD patterns; or
traffic latency in the respective cells as configured with the TDD patterns (Mueck, paragraphs 84 and 103).
As per claim 30, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly adapting the TDD patterns comprises jointly adapting the TDD patterns based on a metric characterizing the performance of the TDD patterns in combination, wherein the metric characterizes the performance as a function of interference measured by sensors deployed in respective coverage areas of the respective cells (Mueck, paragraphs 57 and 60).
As per claim 31, Muck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 30, wherein at least some of the sensors are deployed at fixed locations, are dedicated to measuring interference, and/or are configured to measure interference during times or under conditions that the communication devices are unable to measure interference (Mueck, paragraphs 57 and 60).
As per claim 32, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly adapting the TDD patterns comprises jointly adapting the TDD patterns based on a metric characterizing the performance of the TDD patterns in combination, subject to a requirement that adaptation of the TDD patterns must improve performance of the TDD patterns in combination by at least a margin, as characterized by the metric (Liu, paragraphs 18, 45, 70, and 95).
As per claim 33, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 32, further comprising adapting the margin as a function of one or more of:
quality of service requirements for traffic in the respective cells;
respective numbers of communication devices in the respective cells; or
resources available in the respective cells (Liu, paragraphs 45 and 95).
As per claim 34, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly adapting the TDD patterns comprises jointly adapting the TDD patterns also based on characteristics of traffic in the respective cells (Liu, paragraphs 18, 46 and 72).
As per claim 35, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly scheduling the communication devices comprises jointly:
allocating resources across the communication devices; and/or
adapting parameters for transmission to and/or from the communication devices (Mueck, paragraphs 53-55).
As per claim 36, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 35, wherein allocating resources comprises allocating resources in a time domain, a frequency domain, and/or a spatial domain (Liu, paragraphs 128-129 and 140).
As per claim 37, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly scheduling the communication devices comprises jointly scheduling the communication devices based on information characterizing how close each communication device is to an edge of the cell serving that communication device (Mueck, paragraph 65).
As per claim 39, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein jointly scheduling the communication devices comprises jointly scheduling the communication devices based also on mobility characteristics of the respective communication devices, wherein the mobility characteristics of a communication device characterize whether the communication device is mobile or stationary (Mueck, paragraph 90).
As per claim 40, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein at least some of the respective cells are provided by different access network nodes in the communication network (Mueck, paragraphs 81 and 95).
As per claim 41, Mueck in view of Liu further discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the communication network is an industrial internet-of-things network (Liu, paragraphs 33 and 40), and wherein at least some of the respective cells provide communication coverage for different factory halls (Liu, paragraphs 76 and 113).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25, 42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (US PGPUB 2023/0327844 A1).
As per claim 25, Liu discloses a method performed by network equipment in a communication network (Liu, Fig. 1:100:111 and Fig. 4:400:420, and also please see Figs. 5-10), the method comprising:
jointly adapting time division duplexing (TDD) patterns of respective cells in the communication network, based on performance of the TDD patterns in combination (Liu, paragraphs 46, 72, 77, 109-110, 129-131, and 146, discloses methods according to FIG. 5 can enable dynamic TDD patterns, to dynamically assign TDD patterns in selected cells or a whole cluster); and
based on the jointly adapted TDD patterns, jointly scheduling communication devices served by the respective cells (Liu, paragraphs 71-72, and 128-132, A joint scheduler at the controller can be used to satisfy a prioritized cell's traffic demands and avoid CLI.), wherein the TDD patterns are jointly adapted less often than the communication devices are jointly scheduled (Liu, paragraphs 72-74, and 129-130, discloses The utilization of dynamic TDD patterns can provide flexibility on TDD pattern changes and avoid overhead compared to static/semi-static TDD pattern reconfiguration (e.g., when cells have to be aligned on the timing of static/semi-static TDD pattern changes)).
As per claim 42, Liu discloses network equipment configured for use in a communication network (Liu, Fig. 1:100:111 and Fig. 4:400:420, and also please see Figs. 5-10), the network equipment comprising:
communication circuitry (Liu, paragraph 47); and
processing circuitry (Liu, paragraph 47) configured to:
jointly adapt time division duplexing (TDD) patterns of respective cells in the communication network, based on performance of the TDD patterns in combination (Liu, paragraphs 46, 72, 77, 109-110, 129-131, and 146, discloses methods according to FIG. 5 can enable dynamic TDD patterns, to dynamically assign TDD patterns in selected cells or a whole cluster); and
based on the jointly adapted TDD patterns, jointly schedule communication devices served by the respective cells (Liu, paragraphs 71-72, and 128-132, A joint scheduler at the controller can be used to satisfy a prioritized cell's traffic demands and avoid CLI.).
As per claim 44, Liu further discloses the network equipment of claim 42, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
jointly adapt the TDD patterns by selecting, from different candidate combinations of TDD patterns, a combination of TDD patterns with which to configure the respective cells, based on respective performances of the different candidate combinations of TDD patterns (Liu, paragraphs 46 and 70-75), and
jointly schedule the communication devices by selecting, from different candidate combinations of schedules in the respective cells, as configured with the selected combination of TDD patterns, a combination of schedules with which to schedule communication devices served by the respective cells (Liu, paragraphs 70-75), wherein a schedule in a cell indicates resources allocated across communication devices served by the cell and/or parameters for transmission to and/or from communication devices served by the cell (Liu, paragraphs 45, 48, and paragraphs 128-131).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 28, 38, and 43, 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights