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 01/21/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748) and newly cited Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597).
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the “load information of traffic to be scheduled”.
The examiner relies on newly cited Zielinski which teach the limitation.
In the above cited portions, the information about the congestion for the
All other arguments are fully addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748) and Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597)
Regarding claim 1 and 16,
Rangaraju teaches A method for wireless network convergence comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, causes steps for wireless network convergence comprising: (para [0015])
determining one or more channel conditions for a first wireless link coupling a user equipment (UE) to a first wireless station and a second wireless link coupling the UE to a second first wireless station based on one or more measurements; (interpreted as The SNR threshold can be configured manually, or dynamically. In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT exceeds the SNR threshold, maintaining the first wireless connection with the first RAT, see para [0008])
and
retrieving data regarding the first wireless station and the second wireless station; and links (interpretd as an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008]. Also see congestion metrics para [0109])
performing, at a cognitive layer, a quality of service (QoS) aware scheduling for traffic involving the UE for at least one of the first wireless link and the second wireless link based at least on the one or more channel conditions for the first and second wireless links (interpreted as Seamless wireless connectivity may refer to the STA's ability to use different RATs to maintain a certain quality-of-service (QoS) or another metric that allows for a certain level of user experience to be met. For example, some STAs can determine whether to connect to either a cellular network device (such as a cellular BS) or a Wi-Fi network device (such as a Wi-Fi AP) based on the availability of cellular service or Wi-Fi connectivity at a particular location and time, data rates associated with the cellular service or Wi-Fi connectivity, or customized user settings in order to provide the needed connectivity for certain applications., see para [0028]. if an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008]. Also see congestion metrics para [0109])
However Rangaraju does not teach scheduling based no historical data;
Wang teaches retrieving historical data regarding the first wireless station and the second wireless station; scheduling based on historical data; (interpreted as The terminal device determines, from the Wi-Fi network and the cellular network based on the historical data, a target network with a TCP connection having a relatively small data transmission delay, see para [0133])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju with the historical data scheduling as taught by Wang with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
However Rangaraju in view of Wang do not teach scheduling based on the load information for traffic to be scheduled;
Zielinski scheduling based on the load information for traffic to be scheduled; (interpreted as The predicted QoS is then also know to the network component 200, which can make use of such prediction as well, e.g. when it comes to future load sharing, load distribution, radio resource management etc, see para [0056]. Also see Predicting the future scheduling impacts the future QoS. In some embodiments network components/schedulers may even coordinate their future scheduling, QoS or predicted QoS with each other to reach a system wide improvement. If one scheduler knows a future interference condition for available radio resources from a neighbor scheduler, this can be taken into account, again for QoS prediction and/or for future scheduling, see para [0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju in view of Wang with the load information as taught by Zielinski with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
Regarding claim 2,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the first wireless link is established using a first wireless technology and the second wireless link is established using a second wireless technology different from the first wireless technology (interpreted as The STA1 115-a may be configured to communicate with the BS 120 using communications links 125. The communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and AP1 105-a or AP2 105-b may utilize protocols associated with a first RAT (such as Wi-Fi technology), whereas communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and BS 120 may utilize protocols associated with a second RAT (such as cellular technology, like long term evolution (LTE), 4G or 5G NR), see para [0058])
Regarding claim 3,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 2 wherein the first wireless link is a Wi-Fi link and the second wireless link is a 5G new radio (NR) link, the first wireless station is a Wi-Fi access point and the second wireless station is a 5G gNodeB (gNB). (interpreted as The STA1 115-a may be configured to communicate with the BS 120 using communications links 125. The communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and AP1 105-a or AP2 105-b may utilize protocols associated with a first RAT (such as Wi-Fi technology), whereas communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and BS 120 may utilize protocols associated with a second RAT (such as cellular technology, like long term evolution (LTE), 4G or 5G NR), see para [0058])
Regarding claim 4,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more channel conditions for the first wireless link and the second wireless link comprising one or more of: signal strength; signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); data ratio; throughput; current load information; signal interference from the same channel used by adjacent wireless access points; cellular interference from other macrocells or nearby small cells; traffic or channel congestion on the first and the second wireless links; and error rates. (interpreted as In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008])
Regarding claim 5,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the historical data comprises historical user preferences for traffic allocation, historical traffic allocations for the UE and other UEs served by the first wireless station and the second wireless station.
Wang teaches retrieving historical data regarding the first wireless station and the second wireless station; scheduling based on historical data; (interpreted as The terminal device determines, from the Wi-Fi network and the cellular network based on the historical data, a target network with a TCP connection having a relatively small data transmission delay, see para [0133])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju with the historical data scheduling as taught by Wang with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
Regarding claim 6,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the first wireless station and the second wireless station are separate devices or are integrated together as a single wireless station capable of supporting both the first wireless link and the second wireless link. (interpreted as The STA1 115-a may be configured to communicate with the BS 120 using communications links 125. The communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and AP1 105-a or AP2 105-b may utilize protocols associated with a first RAT (such as Wi-Fi technology), whereas communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and BS 120 may utilize protocols associated with a second RAT (such as cellular technology, like long term evolution (LTE), 4G or 5G NR), see para [0058])
Regarding claim 7,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 1 however does not teach wherein the load information comprises load type, size, data rate, latency requirement, bandwidth needed or preferred for traffic transmission
Zielinski teachs wherein the load information comprises load type, size, data rate, latency requirement, bandwidth needed or preferred for traffic transmission (interpreted as The predicted QoS is then also know to the network component 200, which can make use of such prediction as well, e.g. when it comes to future load sharing, load distribution, radio resource management etc, see para [0056]. Also see Predicting the future scheduling impacts the future QoS. In some embodiments network components/schedulers may even coordinate their future scheduling, QoS or predicted QoS with each other to reach a system wide improvement. If one scheduler knows a future interference condition for available radio resources from a neighbor scheduler, this can be taken into account, again for QoS prediction and/or for future scheduling, see para [0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju in view of Wang with the load information as taught by Zielinski with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
Regarding claim 17,
Rangaraju teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 16 wherein the one or more channel conditions for the first wireless link and the second wireless link comprising one or more of: signal strength; signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); data ratio; throughput; current load information; signal interference from a same channel used by adjacent wireless access points; cellular interference from other macro cells or nearby small cells; traffic or channel congestion on the first and the second wireless links; and error rates. (interpreted as In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008])
Regarding claim 18,
Rangaraju teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 16 however does not teach wherein the historical data comprises historical user preferences for traffic allocation, historical traffic allocations for the UE and other UEs served by the first wireless station and the second wireless station.
Wang teaches retrieving historical data regarding the first wireless station and the second wireless station; scheduling based on historical data (interpreted as The terminal device determines, from the Wi-Fi network and the cellular network based on the historical data, a target network with a TCP connection having a relatively small data transmission delay, see para [0133])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju with the historical data scheduling as taught by Wang with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
Regarding claim 19,
Rangaraju teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium or media of claim 16 wherein the load information comprises load type, size, data rate, latency requirement, bandwidth needed or preferred for traffic transmission. (interpreted as the RAT switching mechanism is based on comparing costs associated with the first RAT with costs associated with the second RAT. In some aspects, the RAT switching mechanism is based on one or more RAT-based profile values, including: available throughput, available bandwidth, number of ports, history of connection with the first RAT in the first coverage area, costs associated with connectivity usage of the first RAT, latency values, congestion values, noise values, and location, see para [0013])
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748), Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597), and Pazhyannur (Pub No 20160156548)
Regarding claim 8 and 20,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 1 further comprising: the redirected wireless link is different from an initial wireless link initially scheduled for traffic transmission, the redirected wireless link and the initial wireless link are from the first wireless link and the second wireless link; and transmitting the converted data flow via the redirected wireless link at one or more scheduled time slots. (interpreted as The STA1 115-a may be configured to communicate with the BS 120 using communications links 125. The communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and AP1 105-a or AP2 105-b may utilize protocols associated with a first RAT (such as Wi-Fi technology), whereas communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and BS 120 may utilize protocols associated with a second RAT (such as cellular technology, like long term evolution (LTE), 4G or 5G NR), see para [0058])
However Rangaraju view of Wang and Zielinski do not teach converting, using a protocol converter, at least part of the traffic involving the UE into a converted data flow to be transmitted via a redirected wireless link.
Pazhyannur teaches converting, using a protocol converter, at least part of the traffic involving the UE into a converted data flow to be transmitted via a redirected wireless link. (interpreted as For example, the Wi-Fi Convergence Protocol-U 201 and the Wi-Fi Convergence Protocol-U 202 may take input from the LTE side (e.g., a LTE side PDU), convert it in the transport protocol format and transport the converted data unit as a Service Data Unit (SDU) to the Wi-Fi side. The Wi-Fi Convergence Protocol-L 204 may take an input SDU delivered by the transport protocol from the LTE side and convert it into the Wi-Fi side SDU format, see para [0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Rangaraju with the protocol converter taught by Pazhyannur with the motivation being to make packets compatible in different networks.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748), Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597), and Pazhyannur (Pub No 20160156548) and Shimadoi (Pat No 6400729)
Regarding claim 9,
Rangaraju in view of Wang, Zielinski, and Pazhyannur teaches The method of claim 8 however does not teach wherein converting the at least part of the traffic involving the UE comprising: separating original preambles from the at least part of the traffic; and adding alternative preambles needed for data transmission on the redirected wireless link.
Shimadoi teaches wherein converting the at least part of the traffic involving the UE comprising: separating original preambles from the at least part of the traffic; and adding alternative preambles needed for data transmission on the redirected wireless link. (interpreted as (64) In the protocol converting means "A", the headers of the frame FR2 are replaced to produce an updated frame FR3. This replacement of the headers will be detailed later. By the TCP processing means, the frame FR3 is processed into TCP data, and a TCP header is added to the TCP data, thereby forming an updated frame TCP1. (65) Then, by the IP processing means, the frame TCP1 is processed into IP data, and an IP header is added to the IP data, producing an updated frame IP1. Then, by the Ethernet processing means, the frame IP1 is processed into DATA, and an Ethernet header consisting of preambles Pr, DA, SA and data length and a CRC detecting errors are added to the DATA, producing an updated frame IP1, see col 9 line 36-45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protocol converter taught by Pazhyannur with the preamble modification taught by Shimadoi with the motivation being to make packets compatible in different networks.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748), Pazhyannur (Pub No 20160156548), and Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597)
Regarding claim 10,
Rangaraju teaches A method for wireless network convergence comprising:
identifying, at a cognitive layer, a user equipment (UE) connected on both the first wireless link to a first wireless station and a second wireless link to a second wireless station; (interpreted as By keeping both RAT functionalities enabled, the STA may be configured to connect with either the Wi-Fi RAT or the cellular RAT at different points during the day, see para [0027])
scheduling, at the cognitive layer, traffic redirection of at least part of a data flow at one or more scheduled time slots across the first wireless link and the second wireless link based at least on the one or more channel conditions for the first and second wireless links, user preferences, and information of the data flow, the data flow is scheduled to be transmitted on an initial wireless link that is one of the first and the second wireless links; (interpreted as The SNR threshold can be configured manually, or dynamically. In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT exceeds the SNR threshold, maintaining the first wireless connection with the first RAT. In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008]. Also see the threshold values used by the STA1 115-a may be determined based on a desired user experience and user preference, see para [0080]. Also see The congestion metrics being monitored or considered by the STA1 115-a may include, for example, at least one or more of a channel access latency measured by the STA1, see para [0085])
transmitting the data flow via the redirected wireless link at the one or more scheduled time slots. (interpreted as In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008])
However Rangaraju does not teach scheduling based on historical data;
Wang teaches retrieving historical data regarding the first wireless station and the second wireless station; scheduling based on historical data; (interpreted as The terminal device determines, from the Wi-Fi network and the cellular network based on the historical data, a target network with a TCP connection having a relatively small data transmission delay, see para [0133])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju with the historical data scheduling as taught by Wang with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
However Rangaraju in view of Wang do not teach scheduling based on the load information for traffic to be scheduled;
Zielinski scheduling based on the load information for traffic to be scheduled; (interpreted as The predicted QoS is then also know to the network component 200, which can make use of such prediction as well, e.g. when it comes to future load sharing, load distribution, radio resource management etc, see para [0056]. Also see Predicting the future scheduling impacts the future QoS. In some embodiments network components/schedulers may even coordinate their future scheduling, QoS or predicted QoS with each other to reach a system wide improvement. If one scheduler knows a future interference condition for available radio resources from a neighbor scheduler, this can be taken into account, again for QoS prediction and/or for future scheduling, see para [0057])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling taught by Rangaraju in view of Wang with the load information as taught by Zielinski with the motivation being to use additional parameters for configuring communications to provide more specific link selection.
However Rangajaruin view of Wang and Zielinski does not teach converting, using a protocol converter converts, the at least part of the data flow into a converted data flow to be transmitted via a redirected wireless link that is one of the first and the second wireless links and is different from the initial wireless link; and
Pazhyannur teaches converting, using a protocol converter converts, the at least part of the data flow into a converted data flow to be transmitted via a redirected wireless link that is one of the first and the second wireless links and is different from the initial wireless link; (interpreted as For example, the Wi-Fi Convergence Protocol-U 201 and the Wi-Fi Convergence Protocol-U 202 may take input from the LTE side (e.g., a LTE side PDU), convert it in the transport protocol format and transport the converted data unit as a Service Data Unit (SDU) to the Wi-Fi side. The Wi-Fi Convergence Protocol-L 204 may take an input SDU delivered by the transport protocol from the LTE side and convert it into the Wi-Fi side SDU format, see para [0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Rangajaruin view of Wang and Zielinski with the protocol converter taught by Pazhyannur with the motivation being to make packets compatible in different networks.
Regarding claim 11,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 10 wherein the first wireless link is a Wi-Fi link and the second wireless link is a 5G new radio (NR) link, the first wireless station is a Wi-Fi access point and the second wireless station is a 5G gNodeB (gNB). (interpreted as The STA1 115-a may be configured to communicate with the BS 120 using communications links 125. The communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and AP1 105-a or AP2 105-b may utilize protocols associated with a first RAT (such as Wi-Fi technology), whereas communications links 125 between STA1 115-a and BS 120 may utilize protocols associated with a second RAT (such as cellular technology, like long term evolution (LTE), 4G or 5G NR), see para [0058])
Regarding claim 13,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 10 wherein data flow is a downlink data flow or an uplink data flow, the information of the data flow comprises load type, size, data rate, latency requirement, bandwidth needed or preferred. (interpreted as In some aspects, if an SNR value of the first RAT is below the SNR threshold, switching from the first wireless connection with the first RAT to the second wireless connection with the second RAT, see para [0008])
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748), Pazhyannur (Pub No 20160156548), Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597), and Sidu (Pub No 20150351096)
Regarding claim 12,
Rangaraju teaches The method of claim 10 however does not teach wherein the first wireless link is a first Wi-Fi link and the second wireless link is a second Wi-Fi link at a different band from the first Wi-Fi link.
Sidu teaches wherein the first wireless link is a first Wi-Fi link and the second wireless link is a second Wi-Fi link at a different band from the first Wi-Fi link (interpreted as At 604, the process 600 includes determining a second WiFi frequency band on which to transmit the communication, wherein the second WiFi frequency band is different from the first WiFi frequency band. At 606, the process 600 includes transmitting, from the computing device, the communication, wherein the communication is transmitted on a channel of the second WiFi frequency band, wherein the communication is transmitted using a second WiFi circuit of the computing device, and wherein the determining and transmitting are performed when a band-switching operation is enabled, see para [0081])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the link switching taught by Rangaraju with the wi-fi link switching taught by Sidu with the motivation being to increase the quality of service by switching to different bands.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangaraju (Pub No 20210204175) in view of Wang (Pub No 20220094748), Pazhyannur (Pub No 20160156548), Zielinski (Pub No 20200296597), and Rahman (Pub No 20230007128).
Regarding claim 15,
Rangaraju teaches method of claim 10 however does not teach wherein converting the at least part of the traffic involving the UE comprising: when the data flow is a 5G data flow scheduled to be transmitted or being transmitted, re-splitting at least part of the 5G data flow into 5G data-plane data and 5G control-plane data.
Rahman teaches wherein converting the at least part of the traffic involving the UE comprising: when the data flow is a 5G data flow scheduled to be transmitted or being transmitted, re-splitting at least part of the 5G data flow into 5G data-plane data and 5G control-plane data. (interpreted as Cellular networks, such as fourth generation (4G) and fifth generation (5G) cellular networks, separate traffic into a control plane and a data plane. Generic data traffic, composed of packets, travels through the data plane and signaling traffic, also composed of packets, travels through the control plane, see para [0001])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Rangaraju with the data/control plane taught by Rahman with the motivation of being able to optimizing the different packets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights