DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Regarding Applicant argument the following clarifications are made to place the case in better condition for appeal should the Applicant wish to do so.
Applicant argues Claim 49 recites, inter alia, "a receiver configured to receive a message from a network device on a control channel." The Examiner has alleged that Kakani discloses this claim element, because "illustrative receipt by the MS in at least figures 2 and 3." FOA at 2. Neither Figure 2 nor Figure 3 discusses receipt of a message "on a control channel." In fact, Kakani does not ever discuss "a control channel." For this reason alone, the rejection of claim 49 as anticipated by Kakani should be overturned.
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the plain meaning and/or as defined in the original disclosure. The original written description does not define a specific control channel (i.e., a specific such as that afforded to Broadcast Channel (BCH), Common Control Channel (CCCH), and Dedicated Control Channel (DCCH)). Therefore, “control channel shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the plain meaning. Control channel be interpreted as a dedicated pathways used to manage and maintain network connections. Based on the above noted interpretation Kakani would steal read on the claimed “control channel”.
Applicant argues Claim 49 also recites, inter alia, "the message includes an allocation of downlink resources for receiving a data segment from the network device and an allocation of uplink resources for transmitting an ACK confirming receipt of the data segment." The Examiner alleges Kakani discloses the claimed "message," because "for every data segment sent in the downlink and ack can be expected in the uplink - 0033, 0040, and 0049." FOA at 2. The Examiner's assertion is incorrect for at least two reasons. First, the Examiner does not point to any disclosure in Kakani that could be interpreted as the claimed "message" which includes "an allocation of downlink resources" and "an allocation of uplink resources." Kakani only discusses parallel transfers of data blocks 312 and ACK signals 314. There is no discussion of any "message" that "includes an allocation of downlink resources. and an allocation of uplink resources."
In response to the first point, the original written description does not define a specific definition/message type that would warrant an interpretation beyond the plain meaning. Therefore, “message” shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the plain meaning. A message is a unit of information or communication sent from a sender to a receiver. Citing Hyatt v. Dudas, the court explained that the "prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of production" and the Examiner satisfies that burden by “adequately explaining the shortcomings it perceives so that the Applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” Furthermore, it has been held that “there has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on the record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie case." - In re Jung
Applicant argues, second, the end point 110 only allocates uplink resources based on an estimate of data to be transmitted by the MS 100 to the end point 110, in addition to an acknowledgment of a previous data block received by the MS 100 - "Upon transmission of a data packet in the downlink, the network can estimate that a similar sized data packet and an acknowledgment will be transmitted in the uplink. The network can allocate uplink resources accordingly." Kakani, [0040] (emphasis added). For this reason alone, the rejection of claim 49 anticipated by Kakani should be overturned.
Based on the Examiner’s understanding of the Argument, the Examiner respectfully request the Applicant pay particular attention to the wording of the claim and perhaps clarify the claim scope. Claim 49 states in part – “wherein the message includes an allocation of downlink resources for receiving a data segment from the network device and an allocation of uplink resources for transmitting an ACK”.
-Allocation is the noun (the what). It is the end result or the finalized plan.
-Allocating is the verb (the how/doing). It is the ongoing action of slicing.
In other words, based on the context and wording of the claim it appears to read in manner suggesting the resources are included in the current allocation because the resource was already allocated – present and/or past tense. Whereas allocating is more consistent with scheduling(i.e., to plan/planning for) future resources.
For the sake of clarity and completeness the Examiner has cited an addition reference that teaches a control message that schedules/allocates uplink resources during the allocation of future resources rendering the Applicant’s argument a moot point.
Applicant argues Claim 49 also recites, inter alia, "wherein the allocation of uplink resources includes a scheduled time interval for transmitting the ACK." The Examiner has alleged that Kakani discloses this claim element, because of "scheduling radio resources in the uplink direction - 0020." FOA at 2. Paragraph 0020 of Kakani mentions an "estimated value [of uplink data] allows the network to schedule radio resources in the uplink direction to the MS to meet the quality of service (QoS) requirements of the traffic." Neither this portion of Kakani nor anywhere else in Kakani discusses an allocation of uplink resources that "includes a scheduled time interval" or a scheduled time interval "for transmitting the ACK." For this reason alone, the rejection of claim 49 as anticipated by Kakani should be overturned.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Scheduling merely requires the set aside or anticipation of a future time period. Again, the Applicant does not specify a scheduling interval that wouldn’t meet the time period allocated specifically ‘after’ another time period. In other words, the Ack is anticipated/scheduled to be transmitted ‘after’ the data or message that needs to be acknowledged.
Applicant argues, claim 50 recites "wherein the allocation of uplink resources is approximately 40 to 60 bytes." The Examiner alleges that Kakani discloses this element, because "must less than 1k segments." FOA at 3. The Examiner does not cite any discussion in Kakani for this rejection, but is presumably citing paragraph [0037]. In any event, the rejection was made under § 102, and thus must disclose every element of the claim. A mere disclosure of "less than 1k" does not anticipate.
The Examiner submits that 40-60 is less than 1lk and therefore would be anticipated. Furthermore, the approximation is based on a notoriously well-known standard of data sizing.
For the sake of clarity and completeness the Examiner has cited an addition reference that read on the well-known specifics rendering the Applicant’s argument a moot point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 49, and 51-53 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kakani US Patent Pub. No.: 2005/0054347 A1 in view of Speight US Patent Pub. No.: 2003/0069020 A1 and further in view of Stanwood US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0062236.
Consider Claim 49, Kakani teaches a system, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a message from a network device on a control channel (e.g., see illustrative receipt by the MS in at least figures 2 and 3), wherein the message includes an allocation of downlink resources for receiving a data segment from the network device and an allocation of uplink resources for transmitting an ACK confirming receipt of the data segment (i.e., for every data segment sent in the downlink and ack can be expected in the uplink – 0033, 0040, and 0049), wherein the allocation of uplink resources includes a scheduled time interval for transmitting the ACK (e.g., see scheduling radio resources in the uplink direction- 0020); and a transmitter configured to transmit the ACK at the scheduled time interval without having to first transmit a request to the network device for further uplink resources (i.e., the uplink allocation can be based on the downlink and scheduled accordingly – 0033, 0040 and 0049).
However, assuming arguendo Kakani does not read on receive a message from a network device on a control channel and wherein the message includes an allocation of downlink resources for receiving a data segment from the network device and an allocation of uplink resources for transmitting an ACK.
In analogous art, Speight teaches in 0025 The PHYSICAL SHARED CHANNEL ALLOCATION message contains a list of physical resources together with transport format combination set IDs for each defined set of physical resources…allocate radio resources to USCH (Uplink Shared CHannel) and/or DSCH (Downlink Shared CHannel) transport channels in TDD (Time Division Duplex) mode, for use by a UE. This procedure can also be used to indicate to the UE, that a PUSCH (Physical USCH) allocation is pending, in order to prevent further capacity requests from the UE. The length of the list is defined by the known variable `maxCCTrCh`. Two separate lists of TFCS ID and physical resources are required for uplink and downlink respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try receive a message from a network device on a control channel and wherein the message includes an allocation of downlink resources for receiving a data segment from the network device and an allocation of uplink resources for transmitting an ACK to reduce latency. Speight also includes a timer and “PUSCH allocation pending which further suggest that resources are “scheduled” (i.e., the allocation is planned in advance).
For the sake of clarity and compact prosecution the Examiner further submits the following teachings. Speight would read on scheduling since the teaching includes a timer and “PUSCH allocation pending which further suggest that resources are “scheduled” (i.e., the allocation is planned in advance).
Stanwood teaches in 0007 “Propagation delays (i.e., time delays in transmissions between a transmitting unit and a receiving unit due to the distance or range between the units) occur within most communication systems. In time-synchronized communication systems, propagation delays must be determined because subscriber units are time synchronized to their respective base stations' time reference. Because a base station typically communicates with a plurality of subscriber units, the base station assigns to each subscriber unit unique time frames for receiving transmissions from the subscriber unit. Thus, a subscriber unit must transmit a burst to its associated base station during a particular designated time frame. For a burst to arrive from the subscriber unit to the base station "on time" (i.e., upon the occurrence of its designated time frame) the particular time of transmission should take into account propagation delays.” To avoid such delays and inefficiencies, Stanwood, on page 7, claim 17 suggests a more explicit manner of scheduling periods of said uplink channel and/or periods of a downlink channel according to a time division duplexing allocation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try scheduling as noted by Stanwood to arrive at the claimed invention wherein the allocation of uplink resources includes a scheduled time interval for transmitting the ACK for the purpose of efficiently using bandwidth.
Consider Claim 51, Kakani teaches wherein the data segment is a full-sized TCP data segment (i.e., TCP data session for TCP application - 0015).
Consider Claim 52, Kakani teaches wherein the data segment is HTTP data (i.e., TCP applications - 0015).
Consider Claim 53, Kakani teaches wherein a start time of the allocation of uplink resources is after a time of the allocation of downlink resources (i.e., allocation of Ack is based on receipt of downlink – 0033, 0040 and 0049- can be scheduled for QoS - 0020).
Claim 50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kakani US Patent Pub. No.: 2005/0054347 A1 in view of in view of Speight US Patent Pub. No.: 2003/0069020 A1 in view of Stanwood US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0062236 and further in view of Wu 2007/0286077.
Consider Claim 50, Kakani teaches wherein the allocation of uplink resources is much less than 1k segments.
However, Kakani does not specifically teach wherein the allocation of uplink resources is approximately 40 to 60 bytes.
In analogous art, Wu teaches “Typically the maximum length of a general TCP data packet sent on the downlink channel is about 1500 bytes, and the length of an ACK packet sent on the uplink channel is 40 bytes.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the allocation of uplink resources is approximately 40 to 60 bytes as is notoriously well known in the art that typically the maximum length of a general TCP data packet sent on the downlink channel is about 1500 bytes, and the length of an ACK packet sent on the uplink channel is 40 bytes in order to maintain consistency with what is already known with regard to the TCP protocol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights