DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered. No claims have been amended, added or cancelled. Claims 27-52 are still pending in this application, with claims 27, 51 and 52, being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 27, Applicant has argued that the prior art reference Ruednick does not teach the claim limitation “adjusting modulation and coding scheme for each set of channels for each frequency hop.” Specifically, Applicant has submitted that “whatever Reudnick stands for, it does not teach frequency hopping and does not combine link adaptation with frequency hopping…” (Applicant’s Remarks pages 7-8).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and asserts that Reudnick teaches the claimed subject matter of claim 27 as broadly presented.
Prior to addressing the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that the claims were given the given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as directed by MPEP 2111. Independent claim 27 broadly presents “frequency hopping” and “each frequency hop” without providing any other specifics on what these claim limitations further encompass. Par. 0009 of the original specification further provides a definition for frequency hopping, i.e. “...FH means that the frequency is changed so that the channel conditions experienced by the signal will vary depending on what channel is used.” This definition/description has been applied in the interpretation of the claims of the application. However, it is further emphasized that no actual “frequency hopping” step is performed in claim 27. Claim 27 merely presents “frequency hop” as a description of different frequencies. Claim 27 broadly presents adjustment of modulation and coding schemes on each set of channels for each frequency hop. Hence, as broadly presented in the claims, a frequency hop merely refers to different frequencies.
With respect to the prior art reference Reudnick, Par. 0020 establishes the use of different frequencies as this paragraph discusses utilizing two different channels, F1 and F2, wherein these frequencies may or may not be adjacent in the frequency spectrum. Further, Par. 0021 discusses applying different modulation schemes for each of the frequencies F1 and F2. Link adaptation is performed specifically by applying different modulation and coding schemes for each of the frequencies F1 and F2 of Reudnick.
Given the current rejections and having the additional reasoning as presented above, Reudnick teaches the claimed invention as broadly presented in independent claim 27.
Regarding claims 28-52, Applicant has submitted the same arguments as already presented with respect to independent claim 27. Thus, the Examiner applies the same reasoning as already presented with respect to independent claim 27.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2025 is considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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)(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) 27-31, 37 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reudnik et al. (US 2017/0311305; hereinafter Reudnik).
Regarding claim 27, Reudnik shows a method (Figure 2 shows a method performed by the system in Figure 1.) of transmission including frequency hopping between channels, the method comprising:
adjusting modulation and coding scheme for each set of channels for each frequency hop (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; in a preferred more robust system 100 utilizes a lower modulation scheme on one channel, such as channel F1, to insure communication and to direct control of modulation and/or transmission coding of the other channel, F2. For example, receiver 106 may generally receive using a lower modulation scheme; it will alert receiver 107 what type of modulation and/or transmission coding will be used by transmitter 104. So if the channel conditions allow, a very high modulation scheme such as 256 QAM, maybe transmitted from transmitter 104 to receiver 107 on F2. Then receiver 106 can alert receiver 107 to change modulations.); and
wherein a set of link adaptation algorithms are used for the adjusting of the modulation and coding scheme, and wherein more than one link adaptation algorithm instance are used concurrently (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; If interference arises in the network, the modulation scheme used by transmitter 104 may be decreased, for example down to using QPSK. Since transmitter 103 is also still using QPSK, in our example through-put of the system will still double the through-put of a single transmitter/receiver network QPSK. Since, when a change in modulation and/or transmission coding is to occur, receiver 106 alerts receiver 107 that change is going to occur, second receiver 107 is continually prepared for modulation and or coding changes.).
Regarding claim 28, Reudnik shows wherein a set of channels comprises a single channel (Par. 0020-0021; each of F1 and F2 are single frequency channels.).
Regarding claim 29, Reudnik show wherein a set of channels comprises a plurality of channels adjacent in frequency (Figure 1; Par. 0020; the two transmitters preferably use two different channels, F1 and F2, which have frequencies which may or may not be adjacent in the frequency spectrum.).
Regarding claim 30, Reudnik shows wherein the number of link adaptation algorithm instances of the set of link adaptation algorithms is the same as the number of channels of the set of channels (Figures 1-2; Par. 0021; example provided shows utilization of modulation and coding scheme on the same number of channels used, i.e. QPSK on F1 and QPSK on F2.).
Regarding claim 31, Reudnik shows wherein the channels belonging to respective set of channels are adapted during operation (Figures 1-2; Par. 0021; example provided shows modulation and coding scheme adjusted during operation.).
Regarding claim 37, Reudnik shows scanning at least a subset of the sets of channels to determine channel properties; and wherein the adjusting of the modulation and coding scheme comprises adjusting based on gained knowledge about the at least a subset of the sets of channels (Figures 1-2; Par. 0024; If channel conditions allow, as monitored by the subscriber station at box 203, the subscriber station may request an increase in the modulation and/or change in the transmission coding scheme at box 204. In response the hub may direct an increase in modulation and/or coding via the control channel, at box 205.).
Regarding claim 42, Reudnik shows wherein a hopping sequence is based on the result of the scanning of the at least a subset of the channels (Figures 1-2; Par. 0021, 0024; preferred more robust system 100 utilizes a lower modulation scheme on one channel, such as channel F1, to insure communication and to direct control of modulation and/or transmission coding of the other channel, F2, For example, receiver 106 may generally receive using a lower modulation scheme; it will alert receiver 107 what type of modulation and/or transmission coding will be used by transmitter 104, So if the channel conditions allow, a very high modulation scheme such as 256 QAM, maybe transmitted from transmitter 104 to receiver 107 on F2. Then receiver 106 can alert receiver 107 to change modulations.).
Regarding claim 43, Reudnik shows wherein the hopping sequence is determined at each hop (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; If interference arises in the network, the modulation scheme used by transmitter 104 may be decreased, for example down to using QPSK. Since transmitter 103 is also still using QPSK, in our example through-put of the system will still double the through-put of a single transmitter/receiver network QPSK. Since, when a change in modulation and/or transmission coding is to occur, receiver 106 alerts receiver 107 that change is going to occur, second receiver 107 is continually prepared for modulation and or coding changes.).
Regarding claim 44, Reudnik shows wherein the hopping sequence is determined at each scanning (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; If interference arises in the network, the modulation scheme used by transmitter 104 may be decreased, for example down to using QPSK. Since transmitter 103 is also still using QPSK, in our example through-put of the system will still double the through-put of a single transmitter/receiver network QPSK. Since, when a change in modulation and/or transmission coding is to occur, receiver 106 alerts receiver 107 that change is going to occur, second receiver 107 is continually prepared for modulation and or coding changes.).
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) 32-36 and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reudnik in view of Nammi et al. (US 2020/0195480; hereinafter Nammi).
Regarding claim 32, Reudnik shows transmitting on one channel with the most robust available modulation and coding scheme; receiving a response; acquiring a suitable modulation and coding scheme for the channel; and adjusting the modulation and coding scheme based on the suitable modulation and coding scheme (Figures 1-2; Par. 0021, 0024; receiver 106 may generally receive using a lower modulation scheme; it will alert receiver 107 what type of modulation and/or transmission coding will be used by transmitter 104, So if the channel conditions allow, a very high modulation scheme such as 256 QAM, may he transmitted from transmitter 104 to receiver 107. Then receiver 106 can alert receiver 107 to change modulations. If interference arises in the network, the modulation scheme used by transmitter 104 may be decreased, for example down to using QPSK. Since transmitter 103 is also still using QPSK, in our example through-put of the system will still double the through-put of a single transmitter/receiver network QPSK. Since, when a change in modulation and/or transmission coding is to occur, receiver 106 alerts receiver 107 that change is going to occur, second receiver 107 is continually prepared for modulation and or coding changes.).
Reudnik shows all of the elements including the communications between the transmitters and receivers and adjustment of modulation schemes, as discussed above. Reudnik does not specifically show that that communications involve exchange of packets. Reudnik does not specifically show transmitting a first packet on one channel; receiving a response to the first packet and adjusting the modulation and coding scheme for a next packet.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Nammi. Specifically, Nammi shows transmitting a first packet on one channel; receiving a response to the first packet and adjusting the modulation and coding scheme for a next packet (Figure 7; Par. 0058-0060, 0095; determining channel state information for an uplink data transmission based on an uplink reference signal and selecting a modulation scheme for the uplink data transmission based on the channel state information. The method includes facilitating transmitting a selection of the modulation scheme on a downlink control channel transmission.).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Nammi, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Nammi, in order to provide motivation for adapting to the changing signal to noise ratio and channel state information more rapidly (Par. 0017 of Nammi).
Regarding claim 33, modified Reudnik shows wherein the acquiring of a suitable modulation and coding scheme comprises receiving an indication on the suitable modulation and coding scheme in the received response (Nammi: Figure 7; Par. 0058-0060, 0095; selecting a modulation scheme for the uplink data transmission based on the channel state information. The method includes facilitating transmitting a selection of the modulation scheme on a downlink control channel transmission.).
Regarding claim 34, modified Reudnik shows determining a suitable modulation and coding scheme from the received response (Nammi: Figure 7; Par. 0058-0060, 0095; selecting a modulation scheme for the uplink data transmission based on the channel state information. The method includes facilitating transmitting a selection of the modulation scheme on a downlink control channel transmission wherein the selection of the modulation scheme comprises an index number from a data structure comprising a first group of transform precoding enabled modulation schemes and a second group of transform precoding disabled modulation schemes.).
Regarding claim 35, modified Reudnik shows determining whether a channel is noise limited or interference limited, wherein the adjusting of the modulation and coding scheme is further based on the determination of the channel limitation (Nammi: Figure 7; Par. 0048; If the channel state information changes, e.g., lower coverage due to the UE 202 being further away, more interference, etc., the gNB 204 can determine the channel state information for a new transmission from the UE reference signals, and select a new MCS index number and transmit the selection via the downlink control channel 210 without needing to wait for RRC signaling to indicate a change in the transform precoding status.).
Regarding claim 36, modified Reudnik shows wherein the first packet uses a most robust available modulation and coding scheme for a used mode of operation (Reudnik: Par. 0021; if the channel conditions allow, a very high modulation scheme such as 256 QAM, may he transmitted from transmitter 104 to receiver 107.).
Regarding claim 51, Reudnik shows a device (Figure 1) comprising:
a receiver (Figure 1); and the device is configured to:
adjust modulation and coding scheme for each set of channels for each frequency hop (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; in a preferred more robust system 100 utilizes a lower modulation scheme on one channel, such as channel F1, to insure communication and to direct control of modulation and/or transmission coding of the other channel, F2. For example, receiver 106 may generally receive using a lower modulation scheme; it will alert receiver 107 what type of modulation and/or transmission coding will be used by transmitter 104. So if the channel conditions allow, a very high modulation scheme such as 256 QAM, maybe transmitted from transmitter 104 to receiver 107 on F2. Then receiver 106 can alert receiver 107 to change modulations.); and
wherein a set of link adaptation algorithms are used for the adjusting of the modulation and coding scheme, and wherein more than one link adaptation algorithm instance are used concurrently (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; If interference arises in the network, the modulation scheme used by transmitter 104 may be decreased, for example down to using QPSK. Since transmitter 103 is also still using QPSK, in our example through-put of the system will still double the through-put of a single transmitter/receiver network QPSK. Since, when a change in modulation and/or transmission coding is to occur, receiver 106 alerts receiver 107 that change is going to occur, second receiver 107 is continually prepared for modulation and or coding changes.).
Reudnik does not specifically show a transmitter; and control circuitry for controlling operations of the transmitter and receiver.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Nammi. Specifically, Nammi shows a transmitter; and control circuitry for controlling operations of the transmitter and receiver (Par. 0095-0104).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Nammi, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Nammi, in order to provide motivation for adapting to the changing signal to noise ratio and channel state information more rapidly (Par. 0017 of Nammi).
Regarding claim 52, Reudnik shows a device (Figure 1) is configured to:
adjust modulation and coding scheme for each set of channels for each frequency hop (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; preferred more robust system 100 utilizes a lower modulation scheme on one channel, such as channel F1, to insure communication and to direct control of modulation and/or transmission coding of the other channel, F2, For example, receiver 106 may generally receive using a lower modulation scheme; it will alert receiver 107 what type of modulation and/or transmission coding will be used by transmitter 104, So if the channel conditions allow, a very high modulation scheme such as 256 QAM, maybe transmitted from transmitter 104 to receiver 107 on F2. Then receiver 106 can alert receiver 107 to change modulations.); and
wherein a set of link adaptation algorithms are used for the adjusting of the modulation and coding scheme, and wherein more than one link adaptation algorithm instance are used concurrently (Figure 1 and 2; Par. 0020-0024; If interference arises in the network, the modulation scheme used by transmitter 104 may be decreased, for example down to using QPSK. Since transmitter 103 is also still using QPSK, in our example through-put of the system will still double the through-put of a single transmitter/receiver network QPSK. Since, when a change in modulation and/or transmission coding is to occur, receiver 106 alerts receiver 107 that change is going to occur, second receiver 107 is continually prepared for modulation and or coding changes.).
Reudnik does not specifically show a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed on control circuitry of a transceiver.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Nammi. Specifically, Nammi shows a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed on control circuitry of a transceiver (Par. 0095-0104).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Nammi, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Nammi, in order to provide motivation for adapting to the changing signal to noise ratio and channel state information more rapidly (Par. 0017 of Nammi).
Claim(s) 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reudnik in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0039127; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 38, Reudnik shows all of the elements except omitting use of a set of channels determined to have properties below a first threshold.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Li. Specifically, Li shows omitting use of a set of channels determined to have properties below a first threshold (Par. 0208-0209, 0220; when a threshold corresponding to a logical channel 1 and a threshold corresponding to a logical channel 2 are respectively 1 and 2, it indicates that an element in a priority set, corresponding to the logical channel 1, of a PUSCH is greater than or equal to 1, and an element in a priority set, corresponding to the logical channel 2, of a PUSCH is greater than or equal to 2. In other words, a priority, corresponding to the logical channel 1, of the PUSCH is less than or equal to the priority 1, and a priority, corresponding to the logical channel 2, of the PUSCH is less than or equal to the priority 2. That is, data on the logical channel 1 can be transmitted only on a PUSCH whose priority is less than or equal to 1, and data on the logical channel 2 can be transmitted only on a PUSCH whose priority is less than or equal to 2.).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Li, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Li, in order to provide motivation for implementing separate transmission between data of different service flows and different quality of service (QoS) requirements, and helping ensure stability and reliability of service transmission (Par. 0015 of Li).
Regarding claim 39, modified Reudnik shows wherein the first threshold corresponds to a feasibility to use a modulation and coding scheme with a minimum data rate for a used mode of operation (Reudnik: Par. Transmitters 103, 104 and 105 and receivers 102, 106 and 107 are designed to transmit and receive using a digital transmission scheme, preferably one whose data rate can be modified based on channel conditions. For example, BPSK or a higher rate modulation scheme, including but not limited to QPSK, 16 QAM, 64 QAM or 256 QAM may be used.).
Regarding claim 40, Reudnik shows all of the elements except listing sets of channels having properties reaching a second threshold.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Li. Specifically, Li shows listing sets of channels having properties reaching a second threshold (Par. 0218, 0220; an element in a priority set, corresponding to an identifier of a second logical channel, of a PUSCH is greater than or equal to a second threshold, or the element in the priority set, corresponding to the identifier of the second logical channel, of a PUSCH is less than or equal to the second threshold. The second threshold corresponds to the second logical channel, and the second logical channel is any logical channel in the first logical channel set).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Li, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Li, in order to provide motivation for implementing separate transmission between data of different service flows and different quality of service (QoS) requirements, and helping ensure stability and reliability of service transmission (Par. 0015 of Li).
Regarding claim 41, modified Reudnik shows wherein the second threshold corresponds to a feasibility to use a modulation and coding scheme with a maximum data rate for a used mode of operation (Reudnik: Par. Transmitters 103, 104 and 105 and receivers 102, 106 and 107 are designed to transmit and receive using a digital transmission scheme, preferably one whose data rate can be modified based on channel conditions. For example, BPSK or a higher rate modulation scheme, including but not limited to QPSK, 16 QAM, 64 QAM or 256 QAM may be used.).
Claim(s) 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reudnik in view of Abe et al. (US 2006/0251122; hereinafter Abe).
Regarding claim 45, Reudnik shows all of the elements except wherein the frequency hopping rate is adjustable based on the determination of adjusting the modulation and coding scheme.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Abe. Specifically, Abe shows wherein the frequency hopping rate is adjustable based on the determination of adjusting the modulation and coding scheme (Par. 0094-0095; Frequency Hopping reception processing section 6021 selects, receives and demodulates a signal transmitted to the apparatus 301 in accordance with a predetermined coding system, frame format and modulation scheme to output the demodulated result, and is assumed in this embodiment to perform reception/demodulation corresponding to the modulation scheme and low-rate Frequency Hopping system the same as used in Frequency Hopping transmission processing section 6011. Partial received quality measuring section 6022 estimates the received quality in a received burst for each carrier frequency used in the Frequency Hopping and outputs the estimated result.).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Abe, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Abe, in order to provide motivation to improve the communication quality (Par. 0102 of Abe).
Regarding claim 46, modified Reudnik shows wherein the frequency hopping rate is determined at each hop (Abe: Par. 0094-0095; Frequency Hopping reception processing section 6021 selects, receives and demodulates a signal transmitted to the apparatus 301 in accordance with a predetermined coding system, frame format and modulation scheme to output the demodulated result, and is assumed in this embodiment to perform reception/demodulation corresponding to the modulation scheme and low-rate Frequency Hopping system the same as used in Frequency Hopping transmission processing section 6011. Partial received quality measuring section 6022 estimates the received quality in a received burst for each carrier frequency used in the Frequency Hopping and outputs the estimated result.).
Regarding claim 47, modified Reudnik shows wherein the frequency hopping rate is determined at an acquisition of new information about the sets of channels (Abe: Par. 0094-0095; Frequency Hopping reception processing section 6021 selects, receives and demodulates a signal transmitted to the apparatus 301 in accordance with a predetermined coding system, frame format and modulation scheme to output the demodulated result, and is assumed in this embodiment to perform reception/demodulation corresponding to the modulation scheme and low-rate Frequency Hopping system the same as used in Frequency Hopping transmission processing section 6011. Partial received quality measuring section 6022 estimates the received quality in a received burst for each carrier frequency used in the Frequency Hopping and outputs the estimated result.).
Claim(s) 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reudnik in view of Abe and Li.
Regarding claim 48, modified Reudnik shows wherein the frequency hopping rate is determined (Abe: Par. 0094-0095; Frequency Hopping reception processing section 6021 selects, receives and demodulates a signal transmitted to the apparatus 301 in accordance with a predetermined coding system, frame format and modulation scheme to output the demodulated result, and is assumed in this embodiment to perform reception/demodulation corresponding to the modulation scheme and low-rate Frequency Hopping system the same as used in Frequency Hopping transmission processing section 6011. Partial received quality measuring section 6022 estimates the received quality in a received burst for each carrier frequency used in the Frequency Hopping and outputs the estimated result.).
Modified Reudnik does not specifically show hopping to a new channel when a channel in use has properties below a third threshold.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Li. Specifically, Li shows hopping to a new channel when a channel in use has properties below a third threshold (Par. 0208-0209, 0220; when a threshold corresponding to a logical channel 1 and a threshold corresponding to a logical channel 2 are respectively 1 and 2, it indicates that an element in a priority set, corresponding to the logical channel 1, of a PUSCH is greater than or equal to 1, and an element in a priority set, corresponding to the logical channel 2, of a PUSCH is greater than or equal to 2. In other words, a priority, corresponding to the logical channel 1, of the PUSCH is less than or equal to the priority 1, and a priority, corresponding to the logical channel 2, of the PUSCH is less than or equal to the priority 2. That is, data on the logical channel 1 can be transmitted only on a PUSCH whose priority is less than or equal to 1, and data on the logical channel 2 can be transmitted only on a PUSCH whose priority is less than or equal to 2.).
In view of the above, having the system of Reudnik, then given the well-established teaching of Li, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reudnik as taught by Li, in order to provide motivation for implementing separate transmission between data of different service flows and different quality of service (QoS) requirements, and helping ensure stability and reliability of service transmission (Par. 0015 of Li).
Regarding claim 49, modified Reudnik shows wherein the third threshold corresponds to a feasibility to use a target modulation and coding scheme for a used mode of operation (Reudnik: Par. Transmitters 103, 104 and 105 and receivers 102, 106 and 107 are designed to transmit and receive using a digital transmission scheme, preferably one whose data rate can be modified based on channel conditions. For example, BPSK or a higher rate modulation scheme, including but not limited to QPSK, 16 QAM, 64 QAM or 256 QAM may be used.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 50 is 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.
Examiner submits that none of the prior art references cited in this action teaches the claimed subject matter as specifically presented in the above dependent claims. Examiner submits that the allowance of this application is based on an examination wherein the claim limitations recited in the dependent claims were not taken alone but in view of the scope of the claim(s) as a whole including any proceeding and/or preceding claim limitation(s) present within the claims and by their respective dependencies on other claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160278159 A1 - A mobile terminal comprises a modem for communication with a wireless network. The modem is configured for operating in a plurality of different modes. The mobile terminal comprises a processing device operative to, in response to detecting a trigger event, perform a mode selection to select a mode from the plurality of modes in accordance with at least one constraint, and control the modem to start operating in the selected mode.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDENTOR M PASIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9745. The examiner can normally be reached M (6am-1:30pm EST), T, W Th, and F (6:00am-2:30pm).
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, Un Cho can be reached at (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 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.
/REDENTOR PASIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights