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 .
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 05/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s1, 4-5, 9-10, 13-14, 18-19have 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Teyeb (Pub No 20240187939) in view of newly cited Gandhi (Pub no 20230025131), newly cited Leng (Pub No 20110110270), Bagur (Pub No 20240172053), and Wang (Pub No 20140194120).
Regarding claim 1,
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitation.
The examiner relies newly cited prior art to teach the amended limitations.
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, 5, 10, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb (Pub No 20240187939) in view of Gandhi (Pub no 20230025131), Leng (Pub No 20110110270), Bagur (Pub No 20240172053) and Wang (Pub No 20140194120)
Regarding claim 1 and 10 and 19,
Teyeb teaches a method comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (see para [0038])
a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: (see para [0038])
calculating an upstream traffic demand (source node); and (interpreted as one or more thresholds associated with load conditions at the source and/or the target node, see para [0076])
based at least in part on the upstream traffic demand on the first access point (source node) exceeding a threshold communicating one or more messages that causes a mobile devices to: (interpreted as The WTRU may operate in a DAPS mode while the condition is valid or satisfied. For example, if a threshold of x MB is specified, the WTRU may initiate and/or operate (e.g., continue to operate) in the DAPS mode if (e.g., while) its total UL buffer size is above x MB, see para [0128])
disconnect, via a first radio of the mobile device, from the first access point; (interpreted as The target node may indicate to the source node that the handover has succeeded. The source node may stop sending and receiving data to/from the WTRU, for example, based on receiving an indication that the handover has succeeded, see para [0083])
connect, via a second radio of the mobile device, to a second access point to receive downstream messages from the second access point; and (interpreted as The HO complete message may include, for example, a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) status report for those DRBs configured for the DAPS HO. The target node may send (e.g., start to send) buffered DL data to the WTRU and may use status information (e.g., provided by the WTRU) to avoid sending duplicate packets (e.g., packets forwarded from the source node but now indicated to have been received by the WTRU) to the WTRU, see para [0082]).
reconnect, via the first radio of the mobile device and while the mobile device is connected to the second access network to the first access point to transmit upstream messages to the first access point. (interpreted as the WTRU may determine a second DAPS operation to apply based on the following: if the target connection is better than the source connection or better than a first threshold, the WTRU may release the source connection, see para [0152]. Also see The WTRU may be configured to, e.g., while the one or more DAPS operation are suspended, keep monitoring the conditions for DAPS operations, keep UL synchronization with the target node, and/or resume the one or more DAPS operation based on a determination that the conditions (e.g., one or more thresholds) for starting the DAPS operations are fulfilled again, see para [0159])
However Teyeb does not teach the upstream traffic demand being an aggregate upstream traffic damage and that the demand is indicated by buffer status reports;
Gandhi teaches calculating an aggregate upstream traffic demand based on a sum of
upstream traffic from a plurality of mobile devices connected to a first access point and future upstream traffic indicated by buffer status reports from the plurality of mobile devices; (interpreted as The access point 106 may determine that conditions on the WiFi network have changed and that the load or demand placed on the WiFi network by certain traffic flows is nearing a threshold. The access point 106 may determine the threshold based on buffer status reports from the devices 104 in the system 100. The buffer status reports indicate an amount of traffic waiting for transmission at each device 104, which the access point 106 evaluates to calculate the thresholds for the WiFi network. The threshold may be near a capacity limit for the WiFi network (e.g., an upstream capacity limit or a downstream capacity limit). Thus, when the traffic flows place a load or demand on the WiFi network that nears the threshold, the access point 106 may determine that the WiFi network may not be able to handle the traffic flow soon, see para [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine demand taught by Teyeb with the aggregated demand based on BSRs as taught by Gandhi with the motivation being to predicted traffic using traffic reports to mitigate overload.
However Teyeb in view of Gandhi do not teach wherein each weighted product is weighted based on a traffic type.
Leng teaches wherein each weighted product is weighted based on a traffic type; (interpreted as Preferably, the weighed sum of the time-frequency resource amount used by all types of uplink and/or downlink traffic data includes the sum of the time-frequency resource amount used by all types of uplink and/or downlink traffic data weighted according to the traffic type, see para [0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine traffic demand taught by Teyeb in view of Gandhi with the weighted sum as taught by Leng with the motivation being more precisely determine the amount of traffic needed.
However Teyeb in view of Gandhi and Leng do not teach connecting to the second access point while the mobile device is disconnected from the first access point.
Bagur teaches connecting to the second access point while the mobile device is disconnected from the first access point. (interpreted as client device 110 may receive improved service if the client device 110 disconnects from the first AP 120a and establishes a new connection with the second AP 120b, see para [0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the switching of AP and then disconnecting from the first AP taught by Teyeb in view of Gandhi and Leng with the switching of AP after disconnecting as taught by Bagur with the motivation of providing the same functionality of switching to a better service connection. However Teyeb in view of Gandhi, Leng, and Bagur does not teach wherein the first access point is physically closer to the mobile device than the second access point;
Wang teaches wherein the first access point is physically closer to the mobile device than the second access point. (interpreted as The region 16 between the UL border and DL border 12 is referred to as the imbalanced region 16. In the imbalanced region, the UL from the UE 14 would generally be better served by the low-power node 4 (as it is closer to the UE 14 than the macrocell base station 6), but the DL to the UE 14 would be better served by the macrocell base station 6, see para [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the access points taught by Teyeb in view of Gandhi, Leng, and Bagur with the distance of the access points to the UE as taught by Wang since it would have been a design choice to have either the first tower or second tower closer to the UE.
Regarding claim 5 and 14,
Teyeb teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the message causes the second access point to indicate to the mobile device that upstream traffic at the second access point is limited (interpreted as The configuration information may include one or more of the following: … one or more thresholds associated with load conditions at the source and/or the target node, one or more thresholds associated with an uplink (UL) buffer status, UL buffer occupancy, see para [0076])
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb (Pub No 20240187939) in view of Gandhi (Pub no 20230025131), Leng (Pub No 20110110270), Bagur (Pub No 20240172053), Wang (Pub No 20140194120), Li (Pub No 20220256556)
Regarding claim 4 and 13,
Teyeb in view of Gandhi, Leng, Bagur and Wang teaches The method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the one or more messages cause the second access point to limit a number of uplink transmission opportunities for the mobile device.
Li teaches wherein the message causes the second access point to limit a number of uplink transmission opportunities for the mobile device. (interpreted as In some aspects, the change of uplink data resources indicated by the GC-DCI may apply for a limited number of transmission opportunities, such that at an end of the limited number of transmission opportunities, a previous uplink data resource allocation may be applied or re-instated, see para [0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the congestion/overload taught by Teyeb in view of Gandhi, Leng, Bagur and Wang with the limited transmission opportunities as taught by Li with the motivation being to prevent congestion/overload in the network.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb (Pub No 20240187939) in view of Gandhi (Pub no 20230025131), Leng (Pub No 20110110270), Bagur (Pub No 20240172053), Wang (Pub No 20140194120), and Li (Pub No 20200252813).
Regarding claim 9 and 18,
Teyeb teaches The method of claim 8, further comprising, in response to determining that the aggregate traffic demand falls below the threshold, communicating a message that causes the mobile device to transmit messages to the first access point and to receive downstream messages from the first access point. (interpreted as the WTRU may release the DAPS operation (e.g., revert to a non-DAPS operation) if the load of the source drops below x %, see para [0120]. Also see Releasing the dual communication operation may include communicating with a single network entity (e.g., only with a single network entity), see para [0004])
However Teyeb in view of Gandhi, Leng, Bagur and Wang does not teach aggregate upstream.
Li teaches aggregate upstream (interpreted as total aggregated uplink data rates, see para [0333])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the uplink data taught by Teyeb in view of Gandhi, Leng, Bagur and Wang with aggregated uplink as taught by Li with the motivation being to increase efficiency by aggregating the data transmissions.
Conclusion
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 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 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