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 Amendment
2. Claims 1,9, 12, 14 and 16-20 are amended. Claims 2-3 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are added. Claims 1, 4-14 and 16-23 are pending.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the new set of claims, as well as in the arguments, filed on 12/23/2025, claim 3 is marked as cancelled. However, the new set of claims recites the previously claimed claim 3. Claim 3 should be cancelled from the new set of claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/23/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 14-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 101 rejection of claims 14-20 has been withdrawn.
With regards to applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/23/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts, with respect to claims 1, 4-14 and 16-20 that the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller does not teach or suggest: “providing, based on the number of TxOPs, an initial gate configuration to the AP by a Non-Real Time (NRT) scheduler for transmitting data between the AP and the client device over the wireless link for a transmit period of each cycle of a number of cycles; detecting a change in a network condition of the wireless link; and adjusting the initial gate configuration by a Real Time (RT) scheduler independent of the NRT scheduler for the transmit period in a current cycle of the number of cycles in response detecting the change in the network condition of the wireless link”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller, specifically, Miller teaches Function 1 (F1), which is the real-time (RT) and non real-time (NRT) Resource manager 18. This function performs the traffic balance functions giving out the pool of resources to real time (RT) and non-real time (NRT) functions plus performing the call admission control function, which determines, given the current load, whether the cell can accommodate a new user of a particular type, data rate and QoS attributes [Therefore, resource manager 18 is responsible for the assignment/allocation as well as updating the allocation of resources for both RT and NRT users]. Function 2 (F2) is the Real Time Scheduler 20. The real time scheduler 20 is responsible for assigning resources to real time subscribers only, like voice users. Given the type of traffic, the allocations are usually static once assigned. Function 3 (F3) is the Non-Real Time Scheduler 22. The non-real time scheduler is responsible for assigning resources for each burst of data for non-real time users only. Given the type of traffic, the allocations are relatively frequent and many would occur for the typical non-real time call. (See Miller; Par. [22]-[24])
Miller teaches that each of the functions F1 to F3 communicate to each of the other functions F1 to F3 using some type of message sets. Message Set 1 (M1) 18a is the set of messages that are used so that the RT and NRT Resource manager can assign a pool of current resources for RT calls so that the Real time scheduler (F2) has the information it needs. Message Set 2 (M2) 20a is the set of messages that are used so that the RT and NRT Resource Manager can know the current allocations to the RT users. Given that RT allocations are usually static, these messages are trivial unless severe congestion exists. Message Set 3 (M3) 18b is the set of messages that are used so that the RT and NRT Resource manager 18 can assign a pool of current resources for all NRT allocations so that the Non-Real time scheduler (F3) has the information it needs so that it can allocate resources. Message Set 4 (M4) 22a is the set of messages that are used so that the RT and NRT Resource manager 18 can know the current allocations [Adjusted based on the results or measurements of the allocations] to the NRT users. Since resources are assigned periodically due to bursty traffic, this feedback is important so that the RT and NRT Resource Manager 18 can alleviate any congestion caused by a temporary (or even more than temporary) congestion due to over-subscription. (See Miller; Par. [27]-[32])
Therefore, and for the reasons set above, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller teaches the claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1, 4-14 and 16-20 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim 1, 4-9, 12-14 and 16-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0092754 A1) in view of Pateromichelakis et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0284077 A1) and further in view of Miller (US. Pub. No. 2013/0329698 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Barton discloses a method (See Abstract) comprising:
receiving a number of Transmit Opportunities (TxOPs) to use for transmitting data between an Access Point (AP) and a client device over a wireless link (See Par. [28]-[29] and Fig. 2 of Barton for a reference to the time sensitivity networking (TSN) central network controller (CNC) 110 receives the radio frequency (RF) profile associated with the station, and based on the received RF profile, determines the number of transmit opportunities (TXOPs) to transmit data between AP 155 and station 135);
providing, based on the number of TxOPs, an initial gate configuration to the AP for transmitting data between the AP and the client device (See Par. [30] and Fig. 2 of Barton for a reference to the TSN CNC 110 provides the determined number of TXOPs to the wireless controller associated with the AP 155) over the wireless link for a transmit period of each cycle of a number of cycles (See Par. [18], [29] of Barton for a reference to the TSN CNC 110 determines the number of TXOPs (cycles) that may be allocated for the next scheduled data interval, based on the determined data amount and the data rate that may be transmitted during the next scheduled data interval);
Barton does not explicitly disclose detecting a change in a network condition of the wireless link; and adjusting the initial gate configuration for the transmit period in a current cycle of the number of cycles in response detecting the change in the network condition of the wireless link.
However, Pateromichelakis discloses detecting a change in a network condition of the wireless link (See Par. [20], [236] and Fig. 9; 905 of Pateromichelakis for a reference to detecting a trigger event, which includes a change to a wireless radio parameter, a UE QoS parameter and/or a change to UE context information); and
adjusting the initial gate configuration for the transmit period in a current cycle of the number of cycles in response detecting the change in the network condition of the wireless link (See Par. [32], [89], [236] and Fig. 9; 920 of Pateromichelakis for a reference to updating the TSN policy (configuration) including QoS parameters in each transmit opportunity, based on detecting the change).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pateromichelakis to Barton. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing transmission efficiency, by allowing the TSN to determine the fixed and predicted amount of time in which info can travel from point A to point B. (Pateromichelakis; Par. [35])
The combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis does not explicitly disclose the providing the initial gate configuration is by a Non-Real Time (NRT) scheduler; the adjusting the initial gate configuration for the transmit period in a current cycle of a number of cycles is by a Real Time (RT) scheduler.
However, Miller discloses the providing the initial gate configuration is by a Non-Real Time (NRT) scheduler (See Par. [22], [24], [27]-[30] of Miller for a reference to Function 3 (F3) is the Non-Real Time Scheduler 22. The non-real time scheduler is responsible for assigning resources for each burst of data for non-real time users only); the adjusting the initial gate configuration for the transmit period in a current cycle of a number of cycles is by a Real Time (RT) scheduler (See Par. [22], [23], [30]-[34] and Fig. 2 of Miller for a reference to Function 2 (F2) is the Real Time Scheduler 20. The real time scheduler 20 is responsible for assigning resources to real time subscribers only. Resource allocation is adjusted based on measurement results).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miller to the combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by enabling an efficient mechanism for resource allocation that would prevent the quality of service (QoS) to deteriorate. (Miller; Par. [5])
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller, specifically Barton discloses wherein detecting the change in the network condition of the wireless link comprises detecting the change in the network condition of the wireless link based on a derivative of a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) received from the client device (See Par. [28] of Barton for a reference to the station 135 may report, to the AP 155, several points of RSSIs received from the AP 155. The TSN CNC 110 analyzes the received points and determines a slope. If the slope is steep, this means that the stochasticity is changing quickly).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller, specifically Barton discloses wherein detecting the change in the network condition of the wireless link comprises predicting the network condition of the wireless link based on tracking past movements of the client device and obtaining stochasticity of a signal received from the client device at different points in its past movement (See Par. [25], [28]-[29] of Barton for a reference to tracking past movement of the station and obtaining the stochasticity of a signal received from the station at different points in the past movement).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller, specifically Barton discloses wherein receiving the number of TxOPs to use for transmitting data between the AP and the client device over the wireless link comprises receiving the number of TxOPs from a Central Network Controller of a Time Sensitive Network (TSN) (See Par. [19], [28]-[30] and Figs. 1 & 2 of Barton for a reference to the time sensitivity networking (TSN) central network controller (CNC) 110 receives the RF profile, including the number of TXOPs to use for transmitting data between the AP 155 and the Station 135).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller, specifically Barton discloses wherein receiving the number of TxOPs to use for transmitting data between the AP and the client device over the wireless link comprises receiving the number of TxOPs for transmitting the data between the AP and the client device that is in motion (See Par. [23], [28]-[29] and Fig. 2 of Barton for a reference to the time sensitivity networking (TSN) central network controller (CNC) 110 receives the radio frequency (RF) profile associated with the station, and based on the received RF profile, determines the number of transmit opportunities (TXOPs) to transmit data between AP 155 and station 135, wherein the station is in motion).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller, specifically Barton discloses wherein receiving the number of TxOPs to use for transmitting data between the AP and the client device over the wireless link comprises receiving the number of TxOPs to use for transmitting the data between the AP and the client device based on a Radio Frequency (RF) profile associated with the wireless link (See Par. [28]-[29] and Fig. 2 of Barton for a reference to the time sensitivity networking (TSN) central network controller (CNC) 110 receives the radio frequency (RF) profile associated with the station, and based on the received RF profile, determines the number of transmit opportunities (TXOPs) to transmit data between AP 155 and station 135).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1, including a system (See Fig. 3; Computing Device 300) comprising: a memory storage (See Fig. 3; Memory 315); and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage (See Fig. 3; Processing Unit 310).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed performs a method (See Par. [36]-[37] of Barton for a reference to a computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis does not explicitly disclose allocating, by the NRT schedular, an additional time budget to the RT schedular from the transmit period in the each cycle of the number of cycles.
However, Miller discloses allocating, by the NRT schedular, an additional time budget to the RT schedular from the transmit period in the each cycle of the number of cycles (See Par. [22], [23], [30]-[34] and Fig. 2 of Miller for a reference to Function 2 (F2) is the Real Time Scheduler 20. The real time scheduler 20 is responsible for assigning resources to real time subscribers only. Resource allocation is adjusted based on measurement results).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miller to the combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by enabling an efficient mechanism for resource allocation that would prevent the quality of service (QoS) to deteriorate. (Miller; Par. [5])
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 21.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis does not explicitly disclose adjusting the initial gate configuration by the Real Time (RT) scheduler independent of the NRT scheduler for the transmit period in the current cycle of the number of cycles in the additional time budget allocated to the RT scheduler.
However, Miller discloses adjusting the initial gate configuration by the Real Time (RT) scheduler independent of the NRT scheduler for the transmit period in the current cycle of the number of cycles in the additional time budget allocated to the RT scheduler (See Par. [22], [23], [30]-[34] and Fig. 2 of Miller for a reference to Function 1 (F1), which is the real-time (RT) and non real-time (NRT) Resource manager 18, which is responsible for the assignment/allocation as well as updating the allocation of resources for both RT and NRT users).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miller to the combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by enabling an efficient mechanism for resource allocation that would prevent the quality of service (QoS) to deteriorate. (Miller; Par. [5])
6. Claim 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. in view of Pateromichelakis et al. in view of Miller and further in view of Barton et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0064788 A1, Referred to as Barton’788).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises a Digital Network Architecture Center (DNAC) controller.
However, Barton’788 discloses wherein the system comprises a Digital Network Architecture Center (DNAC) controller (See Par. [20] of Barton’788 for a reference to the controller 105 may be implemented by a digital network architecture center (DNAC) controller to provide transmission schedules in an RF environment).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Barton’788 to the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Miller. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by enabling time critical and non-critical traffic to be converged in one network, and enabling higher layer protocol to share network infrastructure. (Barton’788; Par. [13])
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Barton and Pateromichelakis does not explicitly disclose wherein the DNAC controller comprises a Non-Real Time (NRT) scheduler and a Real Time (RT) scheduler.
However Miller discloses disclose wherein the DNAC controller comprises a Non-Real Time (NRT) scheduler and a Real Time (RT) scheduler (See Par. [22]-[24] and Fig. 1 of Miller for a reference to the controller RNC 18 comprises a real time (RT) scheduler 20 and a non-real time (NRT) scheduler 22).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miller to the combination of Barton, Pateromichelakis and Barton’788. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by enabling an efficient mechanism for resource allocation that would prevent the quality of service (QoS) to deteriorate. (Miller; Par. [5])
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reddy et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0243797 A1) discloses a method for radio synchronous status messaging between communications units in wireless communications systems.
Li et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0313288 A1) discloses a front-haul transport network (FTN), a method and a device for data transmission, and a computer storage medium.
Mathew et al. (US. Pub. No. 2017/0090872 A1) discloses a processing system to perform logical, mathematical, or other functional operations.
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413